The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 58

Rush then added: "Please come back sponsors! Pretty Please!!"

That. Fuck that fat c-unit.

What Jake said.

From John Scalzi's Twitter feed:

Yeah but Rush really didn't apologize.  He just regrets the word choice not the content of what he said.   And the fact that he's issuing this non apology on a Saturday just confirms what a waste of oxygen he is.   There's been three sponsors confirmed as leaving the show but I can imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg for him.  

An apology even and "in name only" one like this is a big sign that Premier Radio Network is feeling a real pinch in the pocketbook.   I hope the netroots don't let up on this.   "Apology" not accepted.

The President of Carbonite to Rush :  "We are done professionally"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/carbonite-online-backup-rush-limbaugh-apology_n_1318892.html

Damn straight.   My feeling is many sponsors have just been holding their noses and thinking of ratings when it came to advertising on Rush's show and this was the final straw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

I know you know this but just wanted to add......"well, DUH !"

:)

You're right; I know you're right.  It's just so weird to do that out in the open. 

So Mitt wins Washington and.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Really at this point who cares if he wins the most moderate of moderate states winning in Washington, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Michigan (and barely) and Maine aren't impressive. Sure he did win in Wyoming, which is very conservative but there was only a total of 2,000 votes cast, 2,000! In a state wide primary is pathetic! Call me when he wins in the deep south or the true heartland of middle america the bread and butter of the GOP and until than color me unimpressed and still predicting a landslide till he does so, because I still can't see Romney winning in the south when he comes off as the Republican John Kerry. 

Yeah, Super Tuesday is still going to be huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

I'm out of reps. I was on the boobs thread before this one. That is damn good work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ 

So Mitt wins Washington and.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

Really at this point who cares if he wins the most moderate of moderate states winning in Washington, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Michigan (and barely) and Maine aren't impressive. Sure he did win in Wyoming, which is very conservative but there was only a total of 2,000 votes cast, 2,000! In a state wide primary is pathetic! Call me when he wins in the deep south or the true heartland of middle america the bread and butter of the GOP and until than color me unimpressed and still predicting a landslide till he does so, because I still can't see Romney winning in the south when he comes off as the Republican John Kerry. 

Winning Florida isn't impressive? For those that don't understand politics, lets just cover what exactly is a "swing state"

More importantly, if you look at the exit polls in all of the elections you see a consistant theme with Romney. He's winning the middle while the guys to his right (Santorum and Newt) are spliting the ultra conservative vote. Little known fact... the ultra conservative are the ones that will vote rightest of right candidates and I'm pretty sure Romney is at least a wee bit right of Obama. It's worth noting that the ultra conservative voters supported Romney against McCain, Mccain is to the left of Romney. They don't care who the candidate is.. they only care about voting for the more conservative candidate.

Here's a good USA today article that goes over the swing states and how Obama is losing there against Romney and by a larger margin... Santorum (of all people).

Florida is key to winning 2012, so is Ohio and Tuesday will be really, really interesting.

Tuesday's gonna be the final brutal spray of dog diarrhea for the Republicans. Pretty sure that literally nobody gives a fuck about your roster of losers. I hope B-Rock The Islamic Shock Superallah Hussein Obama rides a nuclear bomb into the 2012 elections because all of your guys suck balls. I'll top it off by pissing on Breitbart's grave.

other "who said it" lists we need...

"Rick Santorum or Ned Flanders"

"Newt or Lyle Lanley" (maybe Sidshow Bob)

"Ron Paul or __?____"

"I mean, with the other guys, you can dig into their past and find at least some shred of rational thinking, even if they're cynically downplaying it now," Gallardo continued. "But I get the sense Santorum is speaking nothing but his completely unfiltered thoughts. I know it's weird to say this about a politician, but I sort of wish he were lying to my face at least a little."

Rush Limbaugh continues to prove that he's only a man in the anatomical sense...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/limbaugh-not-think-sandra-fluke-slut-prostitute-181711551.html

In other words, "My point was that Sandra Fluke is a total prostitute but it was my bad saying the actual words.   Oh and it's the Liberals who you should blame for what comes out of my mouth"   He still hasn't touched the whole "porn star" thing he did the next day or when he said her parents should be ashamed of her.   If it was only calling her a "slut", this would have blown over but he spent 3 DAYS trying to assassinate her character.   I hope she sues his ass for a good amount of money.   Lord knows what she's had to endure from Ditto Heads over this.

Also 8 Sponsors have left the Rush Limbaugh show as of today including Pro Flowers, Quicken Loans, and AOL.   With any luck, by the end of the week, the only people who will be advertising with him are "Survival Food Vaults" and Gold Investment firms and then his show will be known as "Empty Calories" (High ratings, low profit)

The candidates have backed away from Limbaugh too.

I'm assuming Romney is going to sweep tomorrow.

Don't think this was posted here before, but, Obama made one hell of a campaign speech at the UAW last week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6l3N1qJ_ZY

FINALLY he articulates a coherent message, and doubles down on his support of the Auto bailouts (a policy with which I disagreed at the time).

I don't know if this has already been posted...apologies if it has, but given the Citizens United decision, this info can't be broadcast enough.

It was originally posted back in Sept of last year.

...and the list of 'donors'

The Koch Brothers' Million-Dollar Donor Club

quite the amusing New Yorker cover....

http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/

Whiteboy posted that seven posts ago.

I should have double checked.

Yeah, you should've. Now you've fucked the whole thread.

 I did it all on purpose. I'm actually a Republican operative trying to screw up discussion of how goofy up our party is.

Figured as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

 

Winning Florida isn't impressive? For those that don't understand politics, lets just cover what exactly is a "swing state"

 

 

More importantly, if you look at the exit polls in all of the elections you see a consistant theme with Romney. He's winning the middle while the guys to his right (Santorum and Newt) are spliting the ultra conservative vote. Little known fact... the ultra conservative are the ones that will vote rightest of right candidates and I'm pretty sure Romney is at least a wee bit right of Obama. It's worth noting that the ultra conservative voters supported Romney against McCain, Mccain is to the left of Romney. They don't care who the candidate is.. they only care about voting for the more conservative candidate.

 

Here's a good USA today article that goes over the swing states and how Obama is losing there against Romney and by a larger margin... Santorum (of all people).

 

 

 

Florida is key to winning 2012, so is Ohio and Tuesday will be really, really interesting.

 

 

 

 

I agree Florida and Ohio are important but I was trying to get out is so far Romney has done horrible in the southern states which he needs to win. So yes winning Florida and Ohio would be important it still isn't as a big deal since he expected to win states like that. Winning in the deep south is what he needs to prove a strong candidate and someone that can compete with Obama. Right now I don't see it happening. He is trailing substaially in Georgia and Oklahoma and could easily see him losing Texas. He just dosen't look he could relate to most of the GOP base so this could really destroy him if he loses states like Ohio, Texas and Tennessee. States like Mass and Virgina (he's basically running unimposed) isn't as big of deal and his almost loss of Michigan has to be rather disconcerning since it is the state he was born and raised in! But really it's the traditional middle America that matters, you know the people who actually spurred on this conception battle, which Romney again flip-flopped on. So until he wins in a "severally conservative" state I don't see him "inevitable" at all and if he gets the nom and doesnt win in a lot of southern states than he'll get destroyed in November like Mondale, McGovern and Landon did. That was my point.

McCain did horrible in the southern states too, Huckabee** stomped his dick in the mud and called him susan and it still didn't stop him from winning those states in the general against Obama. Primaries mean almost nothing in the reddest of red states, they care only about how religous you are and how many times you can reference the word God in relation to all problem solving. Now, if he loses Ohio he's fucked. The GOP in all their wisdom decided to have a long GOP primary this year... that's why this ain't over by Super Tuesday. Even if you won every contest tomorrow you wouldn't secure enough delegates to win. Romney has a delegate stategy, winning Colorado was in there and he failed that target. If he misses one of those important all or nothing states (like Florida which he won and Texas which is questionable that he will secure) he is hosed.

** Huckabee won TN, AL, LA, GA, AR

Holy shit, Snaieke admitting the Republicans may be in trouble. Things must be bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

. The GOP in all their wisdom decided to have a long GOP primary this year...  

 Imagine the days of shortish Primaries, from either side, are probably long gone.

The GOP are reaping what they sowed. This is the end result of using apocalyptic rhetoric in conjunction with a fact-free bubble. Not only are people wrong about a lot of the substance, they're furiously indignant and shielded from any criticism because of the false faith=morality logic. Part of me feels bad that the party of Lincoln is so deeply broken, but it seems like the necessary work of fixing Washington virtually means that the party needs to be replaced with something else. I'd like to think public financing of elections would be a good first step and will make things a lot better, but it won't fix the deep schism between cultural conservatives, corporatist/establishment wing and "libertarian" wing of  the GOP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Holy shit, Snaieke admitting the Republicans may be in trouble. Things must be bad.

Yep, there's just no way they're gonna get offa that island. Especially when the only people who visit are a group of sportsmen of the African persuasion.

The southern states are usually a lock to go red, yes, but Obama won a lot of "southern-ish" states that are usually considered safe for the GOP, like Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. While Romney doesn't technically "need" these states for any electoral calculus, I'd argue that failing to win them will be evidence that a lot of the hardcore base is rejecting him. In fact, Romney's a special case because of his religion; it really seems like a lot of the fundamentalist hardcore, who would otherwise fall in line behind the Republican candidate, are rejecting the idea of voting for a "non-Christian" (in their view). That means Romney is suddenly losing a chunk of his base, who will probably be less enthused with him than they have been with a right-wing candidate in a couple of decades. This is the Republican dilemma in a nutshell--they need to appeal to two crucial bases, the religious fundamentalists and the economically conservative, who are drifting apart. Say what you will about W, he had the ability to unite the two. Of the current candidates, Romney is hated by the fundies, Santorum scares the moderates, and Gigngrich, who could theoretically bridge the gap, is too hateful an asshole to appeal.

That leaves Ron Paul, who actually has an interestingly diverse voter base--he's got moderates and even leftists for his anti-war, pro-legalization stance, but he's also got a lot of fundamentalist religious views that rarely get publicized in the mainstream, excuse me, LAMESTREAM media, but which could win over the base. I wonder what might happen if Romney picked him as his running mate; I actually feel a Romney/Paul ticket could mount a serious challenge, getting past the two candidate's respective weaknesses. Of course, people have been ignoring Paul lately, and last time he made a splash it was taking a callous attitude towards rape. Given some of the political discussion of the moment I think the love he gets from the center and left may be drying up a lot, though that does lead to a potentially nasty division between feminists and pragmatic anti-war, pro-civil rights groups on the left.

I wonder if Barry would vote for a Romney/Paul ticket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

The GOP are reaping what they sowed. This is the end result of using apocalyptic rhetoric in conjunction with a fact-free bubble. Not only are people wrong about a lot of the substance, they're furiously indignant and shielded from any criticism because of the false faith=morality logic. Part of me feels bad that the party of Lincoln is so deeply broken, but it seems like the necessary work of fixing Washington virtually means that the party needs to be replaced with something else. I'd like to think public financing of elections would be a good first step and will make things a lot better, but it won't fix the deep schism between cultural conservatives, corporatist/establishment wing and "libertarian" wing of  the GOP.

My fear is that there are those within the GOP that would continue to pursue their intense and irrational hatred of all things "government" to the point that it irreparably damages the republic...

It's a small minority (I hope) but there are those with a GOP/Conservative mindset that, if they think their ideology is "cornered", they would pursue the idea of  "if we can't have it our way, no one can have it" and try and make politics/government so dysfunctional as to be useless.

IMO, this opinion is embodied in someone like Grover "I want government so small that I can drown it in a bathtub" Norquist.       

Ted Nugent has endorsed Romney, and just like Kid Rock made Romney undergo a grilling about policy before he won Nugent's support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

Ted Nugent has endorsed Romney, and just like Kid Rock made Romney undergo a grilling about policy before he won Nugent's support.

The funniest part of Nugent's endoresment was that he spent more time talking about how he missed Rick Perry - not exactly a rining endorsement for Romney.

Meanwhile Ann Romney proves that she too can make awkward, out of touch comments....

Speaking on Fox News Monday, Ann Romney showed that her husband's habit of making uncomfortable references to their wealth is rubbing off. Attempting to make the point that there are things more important than money, she instead uttered, "I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today gone tomorrow." During the same interview, speaking about the horseback riding therapy she uses to treat her multiple sclerosis, she said, according to Boston Globe reporter Michael Levenson, "Some people have lovers in every port; I have horses in every port." Surely she doesn't actually have a horse in every port (though she does have a very expensive collection of horses). But with a Cadillac in at least two ports, as her husband so helpfully pointed out last month, the comment, along with "I don't even consider myself wealthy," is bound to get a few raised eyebrows.

RELATED: Mitt Romney Prefers to Give Mitt Romney All the Credit

Meanwhile, at an event Monday, Romney introduced his wife as "a heavyweight champion" before immediately laughing and correcting himself. "I didn't mean weight," he said. "That didn’t come out right. She’s just a great fighter is what I mean." Kind of an endearing gaffe, since Ann seemed to take it in stride, but still. Monday has been quite a day for Team Romney.

http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-talking-awkwardly-money-now-too-225101365.html

GOP!  Dissolves the middle class on contact!

The funny thing about Ron Paul and his followers is that they never talk about how his cultural views are actually boilerplate Republican party politics. For all his "cred" on libertarianism, he's FOR discriminating against women's rights and legislating homophobia. Any real libertarian would make the ideological argument against all of this cultural conservative nonsense, so it's interesting that Paul is so silent. And he's clearly in Romney's corner! He's hardly attacked him even with ample opportunity. After all the grassroots energy Ron Paul's mustered up for himself, the most establishment, corporatist and conviction-free campaign will probably end up with all of his delegates at the convention. So, I have a lot of trouble taking Ron Paul seriously anymore on any front. He won't fight the system AT ALL. He can't even buck his own party politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Meanwhile Ann Romney proves that she too can make awkward, out of touch comments....

 

Speaking on Fox News Monday, Ann Romney showed that her husband's habit of making uncomfortable references to their wealth is rubbing off. Attempting to make the point that there are things more important than money, she instead uttered, "I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today gone tomorrow." During the same interview, speaking about the horseback riding therapy she uses to treat her multiple sclerosis, she said, according to Boston Globe reporter Michael Levenson, "Some people have lovers in every port; I have horses in every port." Surely she doesn't actually have a horse in every port (though she does have a very expensive collection of horses). But with a Cadillac in at least two ports, as her husband so helpfully pointed out last month, the comment, along with "I don't even consider myself wealthy," is bound to get a few raised eyebrows.

RELATED: Mitt Romney Prefers to Give Mitt Romney All the Credit

Meanwhile, at an event Monday, Romney introduced his wife as "a heavyweight champion" before immediately laughing and correcting himself. "I didn't mean weight," he said. "That didn’t come out right. She’s just a great fighter is what I mean." Kind of an endearing gaffe, since Ann seemed to take it in stride, but still. Monday has been quite a day for Team Romney.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-talking-awkwardly-money-now-too-225101365.html

These people are idiots.  At least throw in something about "how fortunate we are" or "how lucky we are."  But, really, you're not wealthy?

Jesus.

It's entitlement and lack of self-awareness.

It's like saying between the three vacations, steak dinners, private schools for the kids, and a grand a month on collector sneakers, why there's barely money left for the champagne room.  So it's like not being wealthy at all.

I saw a post under an article a while back about someone who said "you know, we're in the 1% but the money doesn't go that far really..." And I was receptive enough--I come from a background of solidly upper-middle-class parents who nevertheless have had experiences with immense debt that have, at times, threatened to take away everything, so it actually can be the case that you can be making a couple hundred thousand a year and still be weirdly borderline.

Then the poster in question mentioned they have a personal shopper, and all sympathy evaporated.

I don't think it's unreasonable to call yourself "not that rich" and still be able to take fancy vacations, or own a cottage or a really nice house, or send your kids to private school, or whatever; that's the kind of thing the middle class traditionally works towards. (Though you should still acknowledge that you're well off and incredibly lucky, especially these days.) But when you get in a position where you've got luxuries like a car collection or a ranch or something, which, if sold, could bail out the average person's mortgage, then yes, you are rich. Really, if you're running for office, you're rich. Don't pretend otherwise.

That's the advantage of being a Democrat, you're free to call a financial spade a spade. They may be generally terrible at message control, but if there's one "line" that Democratic politicians have perfected, it's the self-effacing "the Republicans want to cut taxes on people like me, who don't need it."

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I saw a post under an article a while back about someone who said "you know, we're in the 1% but the money doesn't go that far really..." And I was receptive enough--I come from a background of solidly upper-middle-class parents who nevertheless have had experiences with immense debt that have, at times, threatened to take away everything, so it actually can be the case that you can be making a couple hundred thousand a year and still be weirdly borderline.

 

Then the poster in question mentioned they have a personal shopper, and all sympathy evaporated.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to call yourself "not that rich" and still be able to take fancy vacations, or own a cottage or a really nice house, or send your kids to private school, or whatever; that's the kind of thing the middle class traditionally works towards. (Though you should still acknowledge that you're well off and incredibly lucky, especially these days.) But when you get in a position where you've got luxuries like a car collection or a ranch or something, which, if sold, could bail out the average person's mortgage, then yes, you are rich. Really, if you're running for office, you're rich. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

That's the advantage of being a Democrat, you're free to call a financial spade a spade. They may be generally terrible at message control, but if there's one "line" that Democratic politicians have perfected, it's the self-effacing "the Republicans want to cut taxes on people like me, who don't need it."

As Hamilton Nolan at Gawker so eloquently put it, "Sure, it's an objectively large sum of money, but it is far smaller after I spend it."

What did you guys think about that Bill Maher segment about the liberal bubble and the potential for a "joke candidate" to win?

On the one hand, I think Maher's got a point that you can't get complacent, and these polls indicating that Romney or Santorum would beat Obama in swing states can't be dismissed out of hand. But on the other hand, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Obama's barely begun to campaign (I'd say that UAW speech counts as an early campaign speech, though) and while the "joke candidate" does indeed sometimes win, they usually have some solid trump card AND an appeal to the average voter, something that I don't think any of the GOP candidates can claim except maybe Ron Paul. And I really think the tide could be turned on Paul very quickly if he becomes Romney's running mate.

You never know, Americans are nuts, but I don't think any of these guys have an upset in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ 

 Really what would a Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum press conference be like it makes me shudder to think anyone in America would even debate voting for any of them.

How about instead of all these debates, we get these nominees to submit to a couple of solo 1-2 hour long 'evaluation' press conferences? 

None of the questions would be known to the participants ahead of time and the topics would range from domestic and world affairs to economics and IMO, one of the most important topics, US history and knowledge of the US Constitution.

We would need to have a group of well educated individuals asking the questions and they would be able to follow up and point out any inconsistencies with the noms answers.

Of course, if we did this, we'd never have anyone be president much less run for the position....but I can dream. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

What did you guys think about that Bill Maher segment about the liberal bubble and the potential for a "joke candidate" to win?

 

On the one hand, I think Maher's got a point that you can't get complacent, and these polls indicating that Romney or Santorum would beat Obama in swing states can't be dismissed out of hand. But on the other hand, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Obama's barely begun to campaign (I'd say that UAW speech counts as an early campaign speech, though) and while the "joke candidate" does indeed sometimes win, they usually have some solid trump card AND an appeal to the average voter, something that I don't think any of the GOP candidates can claim except maybe Ron Paul. And I really think the tide could be turned on Paul very quickly if he becomes Romney's running mate.

 

You never know, Americans are nuts, but I don't think any of these guys have an upset in them.

I don't think Romney is a joke candidate. For all his gaffs, he's been practicing a real ugly, Nixonian campaign that could get him into the White House. Not by a large margin, and a lot of people who vote for him holding their nose, but he could do it. All he needs to do is paint Obama in a worse negative light than he is being painted by Obama.

In 2008 McCain, to his credit, didn't "go there" with the Race issue, Rev Wright, or the Birthers. I can easily see Romney using all three as wedge issues. Not openly of course, but via his Super-Pacs.

I think this is already one of the ugliest campaigns in US history, and it's only going to get uglier. The rest of the world must be laughing their asses off. And you can't tell me one reason the Chinese have started selling Treasuries is that they fear a GOP victory in November.