Mitt books a ticket on the Crazy Train?

I do not believe that God loves us this much.

This has "head fake" written all over it.

The Dream lives

And what other dream can I possibly be referring to than the McCain/Romney dream ticket? Despite this Politico article swearing that The Phoniest Man Alive is the frontrunner for the Veep slot, I just don't see it. We will never get that lucky, and no presidential campaign (at least, no Republican one) is that stupid.

And I find it bizarre that Mike Allen's sources claim that Mitt Romney is "squeaky clean, and fully vetted by the national media." Romney has more baggage than Chicago Midway's lower level; it's just that none of it bespeaks corruption. It stretches credulity to argue that the Crazy Train's VP committee would pick Romney, a candidate who proved vulnerable to every anti-Republican narrative ever devised, from being a classic chickenhawk to a closet authoritarian to the Great Pandering Social Conservative Flip-Flopper of the Ages.

Mittheads rejoice!

I'm still not a huge fan of the idea of putting Clinton on the ticket, but it would be delicious for one thing: the chance to watch Hillary Clinton deliver a rhetorical People's Elbow on Mitt Romney's pretty pretty face in a nationally televised VP debate.

Do you smell what the Hillrod is cooking?

the real issues

Mitt Romney's inability to fold a burrito properly clearly bodes ill for his chances in California.

shoring up "the bigot vote"

Perspective, c/o ONN.

take the mittens off, Michigan!

Heh.

nothing circular about this firing squad

c/o TPM. Two interesting things that Marshall has noted about Romney and the GOP primary that are well highlighted in this video:

1. Mitt Romney does not react well to jokes made at his expense, and it probably doesn't help his image in the debates.

2. This doesn't look like mere politics; it appears that the other GOP candidates genuinely despise Mitt Romney.

I'll be totally honest: I felt a little pity for ol' Mitty there on stage, especially after McCain's jab about being "the candidate of change" (though it doesn't change the fact that it was a good line). Even if I were a Republican, it probably wouldn't make me want to vote for him, and I would wonder why it is that the others seem to loathe him so much, but nevertheless, I saw him wince at some of the barbs and I felt pity.

That may also be because McCain has a look on his face as this mugging is going on that reminds me a little bit of the expression on an elementary school bully's face when s/he gets the whole class to laugh at the nerdy kid: cruelty and schadenfreude. It looked like he genuinely enjoyed humiliating Romney, even beyond the electoral benefits, because he thinks it's fun to tear weaker people down in public, which I guess makes sense coming from the guy who publicly made a teenage girl the butt of a malicious joke just because she had the temerity to be the daughter of a Democratic president.

it's not like anything important's on the line, right?

Wow. Michael Scherer at Time's fetid swamp blog actually did it: he perfectly described the Washington press' (including his own) perspective on presidential elections. Unwittingly, of course. The correct term, my friends, is sophomoric, in all of its definitions. You should read the whole thing, but it can be boiled down to this graph:

So here is the situation that Republicans in New Hampshire face on Tuesday: Do we elect the jock or the overachiever? Do we go with cool and confident, or cautious and competent?

The "jock," of course, is John McCain, and the "overachiever" Mitt Romney, and that is "the thing you need to know": which flawed high school stereotype they would fit into best. Not such droll minutiae as which candidates want to keep our soldiers in Iraq until the next century, or which one thinks we should spend countless billions of dollars deporting the millions of people who had the audacity to seek out the American Dream before sitting through all 4 CDs of the Living Languages English series, or which one thinks we should bet our Social Security checks on the stock market.

To Michael Scherer, TIME Magazine, and much of our press, policy is boring and political philosophy is irrelevant and you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway and Lord knows it would suck for them to have to sit you down and explain it to you! They'll make sure to use small words and simple, easy-to-understand metaphors that you can understand.

So remember: John McCain is cool, we all like him, he's the big strong quarterback that's a smooth talker and scores the hot chicks. Mitt Romney is a nerd. Like "Honors Calculus" nerd. Loves homework and academic decathlon and plays french horn in band. Now who do you want to vote for?

"Mitt Romney: You used to like him"

Heh.

Hey media: Giuliani ain't the frontrunner

From TPM:

On the heels of polls showing Rudy dropping fast in New Hampshire and out of contention in Iowa, a a new poll finds him sinking fast in a third key state: South Carolina. The Clemson University poll finds Mitt Romney now taking the lead with 17%, followed by Fred Thompson at 15%, Mike Huckabee with 13%, John McCain at 11% — and Rudy at only 9%.
...
Rudy's advisors have been pushing a February 5 strategy, positing the idea that his national celebrity and post-9/11 prestige mean he can lose all the early contests but still win big on the national primary day. Romney, on the other hand, has focused heavily on those early states, following the traditionally accepted ideas of how to win the nomination.

Giuliani's advisors should be fired. Like, yesterday. Ru9/11dy isn't even a viable candidate anymore in Iowa or South Carolina, and is looking to get waterboarded by Romney in New Hampshire as well.

And about half of Giuliani's support is gonna bail like rats from a sinking ship, opting for the greener pastures of Romney-ville, while the current Thompsonites are gonna look at the broken, bloody remains of their candidate after he gets splattered all over the pavement in South Carolina and make a b-line for Huckabee (who, by the way, is today for the first time leading in Iowa). And by the end of February, we're going to be talking about the battle between the electoral giants Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, while no one's even gonna remember that Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson ever made a run at the Republican nomination.

Big news on the blue side, too: Hillary's lead in South Carolina has dissipated, and she's now statistically tied with Obama. Last time I checked she's hanging tough in New Hampshire, but there are now 2 openings for Obama (or, perhaps, Edwards) to knock off the presumptive frontrunner, as Obama pulled into the lead in Iowa last week. It looks like we're seeing a nationwide drift away from Clinton as the narrative hardens of Clinton as talking out of both sides of her mouth. My suspicion (and hope) is that it continues and one of the other two becomes a giantkiller this February, and again in November.

American Chickenhawks presents:

This week, Mitt Romney, who was too busy braving the dangers of fresh-made coq au vin (it's alcoholic, ya know!) to be bothered with such trivial threats as the Epic Cold War Against the Global Communist Threat.

Reading the NYT article, is it just me or does young Mitt Romney sound like the nerdiest little rich kid ever? Writing like a cartoon character... at 19? What's that about?

John McCain's health care plan

A strong dose of finger-wagging at patients for not buying insurance, getting too much care, eating too much, and always suing their doctors, combined with a solid regimen of cutting the number of procedures Medicare covers and using that money to subsidize HMO profits.

If that's not a winning combination, I don't know what is!

Oh, and a message for the Mitthead and Ru9/11dy: ya know what's the most "portable" insurer of health care? Medicare.

"Massachusetts values"

Hysterical. The Log Cabin Republicans figure out how to take Romney down for going whole hog against the gay community. They're running this ad...

...in Iowa.

See, this is why the idea of a Romney campaign seems so absurd to me. I mean, this is all the Dems would do on TV, because let me tell you people, if you think John Kerry was a flip-flopper, this guy will blow you away!

Of course, on the other hand, unlike Rudy, at least the Christian Right hasn't said they'll mount a 3rd party challenge if he wins the nomination.

interesting results from an Iowa poll

New poll of Iowa Republicans. Romney wins, followed by Giuliani. Guess who's in third?

Barack Obama.

sacrifice, GOP-style

From AP (c/o TPM):

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

That was Mitt Romney's answer to why he didn't ask his kids to serve in Iraq.

Romney, of course, like fellow war supporters Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson: Male Prostitute, chose not to serve when he was of age. He was too busy eating good cheese and irritating Parisians with good news from the angel Moroni.

only 2 Republicans have signed onto Youtube debate

From the Washington Post blog (c/o Jeff Jarvis):

Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C,. more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube -- targeted at Republicans scheduled to get their turn at videopopulism on Sept. 17.

But so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg.
...
Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up. Neither have the rest of the Republican candidates, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose "Tancredo Takes" on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views. Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he's unlikely to participate...

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Very telling. You figure there might a whole mess of questions from Republican primary voters that certain GOP frontrunners don't want to answer? Or that the "Republican primary voter" is a breed that the GOP doesn't want the rest of the country to see?

Josh Marshall's gotten some reader comments, and has posted a couple of good points.

The first one:

You realize why Rudy doesn't like the YouTube debate format, right? He doesn't want the NY fire fighter's to get a clean shot at him on national TV.

Probably true. One can only imagine the reaction of the FDNY posting a scathing video demolishing Rudy's 9/11 cred, how he could possibly answer it, and what that would do to his numbers. Remember, 9/11 is his campaign. That's all he's got. And what are the moderators gonna do, not air the video from the friggin' FDNY? The scandal would probably cause such a ruckus that everyone would end up hearing about it and seeing the video on the Nightly News instead!
Here's the second one:

One of the thoughts that occurred to me with regards to the Democratic Youtube debate was how weird the questions for the GOP candidates could potentially be...As far as issues like illegal immigration and "coercive interrogation techniques" go, how does one ask questions like this in a Youtube format in an amusing way? The differences between the GOP base and the political mainstream can seem less extreme when asked by someone like Wolf Blitzer, but if presented from the standard GOP rank-and-file member of the base, it seemed like a great way to show how unhinged the GOP has become on some of these issues. Personally, I'm surprised the GOP ever got close to agreeing to this format, and once the Democratic debate happened and showed the format in action, I didn't see how it could have been pulled off by the GOP.

I agree that the Republican base, right now, is much farther from independents than the Democratic base, but I kinda think the moderators could weed out the less reasonable-sounding ones. I bet one could find the vids on Youtube (perhaps there's a specific category for the GOP debate? One would think so.) and look for oneself, but I don't really want to subject myself to that.

For what it's worth, I happen to think a debate between a floundering, desperate John McCain and a surging, confident Ron Paul could be fascinating to watch. Romney does contribute some great gag-lines, like "There is a global jihadist movement ... And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent" and "I'm pro-life," but other than that everyone else is just a waste of oxygen in these things anyway.

one hell of a throwaway remark

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:

Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner. [emphasis mine]

I'll leave his "primary difference," its twisted logic, its broken morality, and its ridiculous implications aside for now, because I want to focus on the other 2.

Look at his "difference in the political reality." That's an incredible admission from a journalist, eh? That the national political press corps is trying to bury Edwards because they just don't like him?!?! Wow. That answers sooooooooo many questions right there (like, for instance, the truth behind his "primary reason").

So much for that vaunted press "objectivity," eh? And do we really wonder whether that is "fairly or unfairly?" I think we all know which one applies here.

It's also good to know that being "the Republican frontrunner" means that the press will not be interested in "burying" you. That, too, explains a lot. Especially about the last 2 elections.

So much for that vaunted "liberal media."

So remember, kids, the reporter has admitted it openly: if you're the Republican frontrunner, no matter how blatant your hypocrisy, the Washington press corps will not be interested in pointing out your flaws. If, however, you advocate for the poor and don't at least pretend to be one yourself, the press will hate you and try to "bury" you.

Romney's dog poop story: an explanation

I just read a commenter who suggested that it was a "canary in the coalmine" maneuver: once the dog couldn't hold it anymore, he knew he had to pull over to let the kids go.

The Republican Party is run by totalitarians

Don't believe me? From Glenn Greenwald:

Various Republican candidates attended a meeting of Club for Growth, and afterwards, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru spoke to Cato Institute's President Ed Crane about what they said. This brief report from Ponnuru is simply extraordinary:

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review.

So Crane asks GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney if he believes the president can nullify by fiat a United States citizen's rights of habeas corpus and a fair and speedy trial of his peers, a power no British king has had since the 12th century. Any person with American political sensibilities, especially, God bless him, a conservative, would be aghast at such a proposition, right? Romney's answer:

Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind.

Apparently the issue of whether American citizens have the right to contest their charges is a little hazy for this Republican candidate.

What about leading GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani?

Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Giuliani promises he'll only occasionally strip American citizens of the most basic freedoms guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights.

There is no such thing as a democracy in which the Executive can imprison citizens without a fair trial. The law states that all citizens have rights, and in order for power to rest with the people (the definition of "democracy"), the rule of law must be upheld. If it is a president that rules, and not the law, then power rests with him and not with the people. And a president that can defy the Bill of Rights with impunity is not a president, but a dictator. After all, if a president can disregard amendments to the Constitution, what laws bind him?

Democracy and totalitarianism cannot exist side by side. Either the people rule, or the executive rules. I vote for the people.