It seems like no one can quite believe that the Republicans will nominate Mitt Romney, but no one can picture anyone else getting the nomination, either. I know that’s how I feel. There is really only one area where Romney makes sense for the Republicans, and it’s not the economy. Romney is the only Republican candidate who has enough familiarity with foreign affairs to make a plausible president. I don’t mean that Romney has more direct experience. Probably, disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum have more experience dealing with foreign dignitaries and matters of national security. But each of them is slightly crazy, in their own way. Romney, like Obama, is qualified to handle foreign policy simply because he’s intelligent, curious, and well-traveled. If he became president he wouldn’t, like Bush the Younger, have to staff his cabinet with people who actually have some idea of how the world works. He could take care of that end of things by himself. He could, in other words, be his own man in the White House.
I don’t think you can say that about Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul or Herman Cain. I guess you could say it about Jon Huntsman, but why bother? If anyone other than Romney wins the nomination, they’ll probably have to pick a running-mate who can actually run our foreign policy, much like Dubya tapped Dick Cheney. In other words, they won’t have the luxury of picking someone just to fire up the base. John McCain tried that, and it obviously didn’t work out. But it did pump some adrenaline into his campaign for a while.
However, there’s a problem. Dubya had a field of respected people like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld to choose from. Where are the respected old-hands now? Who can step in and provide that kind of comfort level? It seems to me as if the modern GOP is utterly bereft of leadership. Over the last decade and a half, their leaders have systematically discredited themselves. Think about the careers of Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice. Think about John McCain and Sarah Palin. None of them would be tempting figures for a Republican nominee to bring on as trusted advisors. None of these people would be welcomed back into public life. And, with the exception of John McCain, all of them have left public service.
Frankly, I don’t know how Romney would go about staffing up his cabinet. There are no obvious candidates to be Secretary of State, for example. Maybe Dick Lugar could take the job. Or Jon Huntsman. But the cupboard is startlingly bare.
I think, more than any other factor, this is why Romney is still likely to win the nomination. Even though no one really likes the guy and he’s a terrible fit for the Republican Party’s base, people can at least picture him doing the job.
But just because it’s likely that he will win the nomination, that doesn’t mean he will. If he doesn’t, I don’t think any alternative will be able to convince the people that they, and their team, has what it takes to run the American Empire.
I think you pretty much stated the case for why Mittens won’t win the nomination. If you are the Koch Brothers, why not try to move the conversation, so to speak, as much to the right as possible?
Other than one sentence where I said Romney is not a good fit for the GOP’s base, I didn’t even discuss Romney’s positions on the issues.
You don’t need to discuss the issues. Look at Mittens’ numbers. He has a base of support of about 20% of the GOP. And that’s with everyone knowing who he is. It means that no one wants him. Who is going to knock on doors for him, besides his sons? And how excited can they get over someone that is going to crushed in every “home” state(CA, MA & MI) he plausibly tries to claim. As I’ve said before, it would be political malpractice if Mittens is the GOP nominee. He’s just too flawed a candidate.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Lyndon LaRouche has a ton of door-knockers.
Enthusiasm among the highly politically involved is only a small part of politics.
I can think of two Republican foreign policy hands who haven’t completely discredited themselves over the past decade and a half – who, instead, actually look quite responsible and competent:
William Cohen and Robert Gates.
Lindsey Graham is just devastated by this post right now.
he might win it, but nobody likes him. I mean NOBODY.
Alas, if liking had much of anything to do with nominations, then Nixon wouldn’t have been a five-time candidate (and four-time winner) for national office….
Lugar is too pragmatic to think he could bring sanity to any of the GOP hopefuls’ Cabinets and that’s the truism of this; there just isn’t any depth of field to back a Romney, Cain or Perry administration up. Anyone sane is going to ask for a pass so they don’t have to use white out on their political resume down the road.
It’s not to late to remember the dream of a Senate of 60 and a House back under control with Obama in the WH.
It wouldn’t be magical fairy dust but it sure would give us leverage to finally balance the system left.
And what would Democrats do with their majorities if they had them? Suck up to Wall Street and K Street again?
Why should I give a flying fuck whether they have jobs? I care whether my family members have jobs. I care about whether my sister and I can continue receiving SS with fair COLAs. I care whether my daughter and her children have Health Care, which current law only guarantees to one and then only as long as I keep paying (in fairness why not? One more person doesn’t affect the family policy). I care whether my oldest grandson drowns in a sea of student loan red ink. Democrats have demonstrated that they don’t care about any of these things, just getting more contributions from corporations.
Yup.
To all of it.
The truth of the matter.
Thanks…
AG
Jesus Christ.
I’m surrounded by amnesiacs.
I know it will help a lot of people, but that law didn’t help me one bit. In fact, sometimes I regret taking out federal loans at all. Because of George Bush, my federal loan interest rates are higher — in some cases they’re double — than my private loans.
Amnesiacs, eh Booman?
How much did the Clinton administration contribute to our current situation? That’s where the bubble stated, baby. Right there.
You still have the frogmarching logo up on this site. It originally referred to your desire to see people like Cheney and Bush II frogmarched up to the guilty table and perhaps even the gallows for their crimes, yet they were merely doing their job as servants of the Permanent Government, economic imperialist system in which we live. So was Clinton and so is Obama.
Has Obama frogmarched people like Geithner, Diman and Immelt into court for their parts in this criminal charade? Hell no!! He’s hired them as advisors
C’mon …
Health-care bills that do not address the plentifully obvious fact that the so-called “health care” they support is a poisonous wasteland? Student loan “help” that doesn’t address the absolute failure of the educational system that requires the loans in the first place?
Please.
i got yer “amnesia.”
Right here!!!
C’mon…
AG
It’s too late in the year for this to be an April’s fools joke. This reads like a quasi endorsement of Romney! Romney his own man?! Are we talking about the same Romney? Romney will be whatever the fuck Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove tells him to be and you know it! What, are you hoping to get a position in his administration? I don’t know what the fuck is going on with you lately or Democrats. You got half like you trying to convince yourselves Romney won’t be that bad and the other half of people who should know better like unions following the beat of fuckin’ drums on a death march..
Why Romney is likely to win the RatPub nomination?
Because he:
1-Looks the part. (Remember…what we are seeing is the public part of the audition. And how we react to his audition is how the decision will really be made. That and what happens on the casting couch/in front of the PermaGov desks. Bet on it.)
and
2-Combines two traits that are very important to the owners of both parties…the corporate-based PermaGov.
A-He does not look like he wants to rock the boat. He does not appear to want to rock any boats.
B-He has a better chance of winning…despite how small that chance may be…than that of any of the other dedicated boat non-rockers.
The PermaGov’s gig is is as follows:
Get a non-boat rocker nominated by both parties and they cannot lose.
Duh.
That’s it.
That’s all there is to it and has been since JFK’s assassination.
And how do they…how have they over the last 50 years or so, anyway…managed to pull this off?
Corporate ontrol of the media is how.
Duh.
A possible breakdown of this system as it now stands?
Only through Digital World.
Today when the media try to non-person someone or some event, the interested parties can try to pull an end-around play, a digital flanking march. (See “Arab Spring” for more on this idea.) If they are successful…as have been the whole Occupy thing, the Tea Party people and to some degree Ron Paul and the Libertarians (a group that poses the most serious threat to the PermaGov of the three because it actually has a functioning organization, a great deal of money and some very clear goals) then the media is forced to cover them.
Remember the old movie lines? “Call me anything but call me often” and the other one, “Say whatever you want to say about me but spell my name right.”
Yup.
It’s all about publicity.
Romney?
He’s a RatPub lock now, I think. Cain? Too Kochy for the real Permas.
So’s Obama a lock.
They can stage a mock fight and may the least offensive liar win. Unless of course they are somehow forced to deal with Ron Paul on a level media playing field.
Because then?
The all bets are off and the fix goes out the window.
Watch.
Gonna be…interesting.
Watch.
AG
With all due respect to you, and to the power of the Corporate PermaGov, and its paid media, how is Ron Paul, longtime cozy friend of racists and nativists, in any way someone for progressives to celebrate?
He’s not. This calls for this article again: Ron Paul and the Dysfunction of the Left
Well, here I am, caught in the middle once again.
Which middle? The one that is absolutely similar to the one in which jazz musicians find themselves when they are given someone else’s version if what a given musician played on a recording. Transcription,…listening to a piece of recorded music and then writing down what has been played…is a very difficult task when the music as complex as say that of Duke Ellington or John Coltrane. There is always some guesswork involoved. Further, many so-called transcribers are, to use musical terms, absolutely full of shit. However, their books of transcriptions and harmonic analysis sit there right next to the real deal on the bookshelves of music libraries the world over.
Hmmmm…
What to do; what to do…
When I teach this sort of thing to aspiring players and composers, I say “Go back to the original and figure it out for yourself. And never ever trust anyone outside of the immediate circle of musicians who actually played the music to tell you what was really happening unless hey have thoroughly proven to you that they can actually transcribe accurately.”
OK.
So here we are reading an article by someone named “Élise Hendrick.” Great. Who the fuck is she? I don’t know. Do you? She looks sorta…youngish. Some graduate student or teacher at a German University maybe? Oh. Like the music school grad students and university teachers who transcribe the harmony to complicated tunes incorrectly? Quite possibly. Was it written in English originally or has it been translated, and if it has been translated, by whom? Did she read Ron Paul’s stuff in the original English or was that translated as well. Hmmmm…possibly translated twice before we even get to it?
Oh.
So…what to do?
Go check out Ron Paul, please. And not just his early stuff. Coltrane didn’t sound so good when he started either, y’know. Me neither. Check Mr. Paul out live, in real time. See where his tics are and where they are not. If he was speaking about …ohhh, say music or cooking or nuclear physics or selling you a car…would you be tempted to believe him or not?
Hmmmmm….
I have done this, podnas, and I think that he’s simply a straight-up constitutional constructionist. Not a racist, not a fascist, not any of those “-ist” things that leftinesses love to fling around. If I’m wrong? Sue me, just so long as I can sue you back for having been wrong about Obama and Bill Clinton and John Edwards and…ahhhh, you know! Alla them DemRat fakers that I have watched come and go over the last 50+ years.
Meanwhile, until I gather some kind of trustworty knowledge that he’s really a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan or is busily engaged backstage telling his followers all kinds of coon stories, I’m supporting him.
Thank you and good night.
AG
I chose that article specifically with you in mind, considering you’re always on and on about the media, PR, and marketing. That article’s chosen path for crushing Paul is right up that angle.
Have you seen his newest political ad titled, “Life”?
Besides, Ron Paul doesn’t even necessarily favor dismantling the MIC, AG. Obama wants to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan? Ron Paul wants to move troops to the southern border.
Gary Johnson is someone I could get behind…MAYBE. Like if it were him and Obama in the GE, I’d have to think really hard about it. I’d probably come up and vote for Obama in the end, but it would be a time where I actually had to think about the candidates. Not so with Ron Paul. he’s a fraudster; he’s a Pat Buchanan paleocon.
Empty words.
Prove it.
AG
Are you familiar with Orcinus?
Or, just look up Dave Weinart.
He writes for Crooks & Liars these days.
Familiarize yourself with his work on Ron Paul.
Do it so that you can be certain that you know what you’re talking about.
To make it even easier, here are a few links to some of David Neiwert’s research on and writing about Ron Paul over the years:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-and-his-followers.html
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ron-pauls-inner-far-right-extremist
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/rand-paul-bright-young-apple-who-fal
See my reply to Booman below.
Especially this part:
Wake the fuck up. Get your head(s) out of the asses of the mediocre media and wake the fuck up.
Want a précis of this guy’s career?
Sure.
Here ’tis:
Sandpoint, Blackfoot, Lewiston, Moscow, Twin Falls, Missoula, Kent, Bellevue, and Seattle in 18 years. Then on to the ultimately totally stupid, knee-jerk leftinessism of MSNBC. There’s a career track fer ya!!! Now…he may be a very nice guy, a good family man and a competent sentence-writer/journalist. But he ain’t Mike Taibbi or Seymour Hersh.
Bet on it.
Is that all you got?
Give me a break.
AG
I know Dave.
He’s a great guy, which doesn’t’ make him right. But he’s studied the far right meticulously, and his presence in Montana and Idaho has given him access to the most virulent forms of American far-rightiness. He’s what you call an expert.
His only rivals work for the Southern Law Poverty Center.
Jesus, Booman…you not only give me yet another “Somebody said…” link instead of proving by citing his own words and actions that Ron Paul is some sort of fire-breathing right wing racist dragon who will end up somewhere on the other side of Adolph Hitler or some other ridiculous shit, you don’t even know how to spell the somebody’s name. Get real.
The left has failed. So has the right. For 60+ years, Booman. For 60+ years. We need a new paradigm, an approach that is neither “right” nor “left” as those terms are used and abused by the media and by the whole political process in the U.S. today. The closest thing to something new that has any chance whatsoever of winning a national election is Ron Paul.
You want four more years of Obama?
With a divided Congress? Four more years of stalemate.
With a DemRat-dominated Congress? Four more years of Wall Street bailouts, ever-expanding world-wide American military action (Seen the shit about U.S. troops and Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa? Please. There’s oil in them there countries. Just as it’s always been and business as usual, while you sit here and applaud his “peace” efforts. Wake the fuck up and smell the napalm.) and an ever more rapidly expanding surveillance state that should scare the shit out of you. It scares the shit out of me, for sure.
And here you are prattling on about what some 50-ish journeyman reporter has to say about his “specialty,” the crossover between the mainstream and the far right.
So what, Booman? I’m sure that with maybe 10 minutes of googling I could find another 12 low-rent writers who have different things…varying degrees of negative, positive or undecided…about Ron Paul. So what!!!???
What do you think? I mean, what do you really think, not what have you been force-fed through the preaching-to-the-leftiness-choir grapevine.
C’mon…you can do better than that. Spend some of the time that you normally spend wonking around in “DemRats And Their Chances Of Winning” speculation and give this guy a good listening-to.
He is not what you have been told he is.
Bet on it.
He is not what you have been told.
THINK, goddamnit!!!
AG
FWIW, the reason I took the time to find (and read) the links I provided is that Neiwert is pretty meticulous about documenting his sources and providing links to evidence that supports his arguments.
Speaking just for myself, I’m not saying Ron Paul is “some sort of fire-breathing right wing racist dragon”. I’m saying that based on:
*what I know about the man,
*what I know about the US libertarian movement,
*what I know about Texas’ history, politics and culture,
Ron Paul’s “new paradigm” is not “something new” that I want to have any more power in the US than it already does.
History doesn’t repeat, but sometimes it rhymes. Ron Paul and his followers sound familiar to these ears. Not unlike the last time the US had this level of income inequality (1920s, and there was a vibrant neither-left-nor-right popular movement that united against (in their words) Koons, Kikes and Katholics.
Thanks, but no thanks.
So because there was a movement almost 100 years ago that used the terms “Koons, Kikes and Katholics” (and worse) you paint Ron Paul with the same brush. And why?
“Ron Paul and his followers sound familiar to these ears.”
OK…prove it.
Show me where Ron Paul says things even remotely like this, please.
You cannot, of course.
Now…some of his supporters?
Possibly. He can’t control who supports him and who doesn’t.
While we are on that subject…some of Barack Obama’s biggest supporters are trillion-dollar thieves who should be garrotted…or at the very least thoroughly waterboarded… on the National Mall in front of every TV camera in the nation. Ditto most of the corporate sponsors of the DemRat Party. Yet you support Mr. Obama and the DemRats, right?
Sigh.
Wake the fuck up.
To yourself!!!
Here are some Ron Paul quotes that you could find, though, if your mind was open enough to give such a tiny exertion a little try:
Here:
And here:
Hmmmmmmm…
Some “racist,” eh? Some warmonger, too.
Wake the fuck up.
You been had.
Not just from the so-called “left” and “right,” either.
From the rear. While you were asleep. While you were asleep watching television.
Mind rape.
And what do the media say about that?
“Relax and enjoy the experience” is what they say.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
Ron Paul on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37
726/
Paul supports changing the 14th amendment to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.
I suppose the Wikipedia entry is a decent overview of Rep. Paul’s political career and his views on many issues. Folks can make their own judgments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
I am so sick of this dimwitted set of accusations.
Can you not read? (Boldface mine, below.)
And this is what you use to label both Ron and Rand Paul “racists?” Because some equally dimwitted fool wrote things like “under political pressure” and “apologetic” before the statement?
Get real.
They simply think that there would have been a better way to go about ending the “illegal…abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.” And so do I. Want to call me a racist, too? After 40+ years of playing African American and Afro-Caribbean-founded musical idioms at the highest levels on the NYC scene.
Tell you what…you don’t want to say that to me in person.
Bet on it.
Gotta go now…playing a Dizzy Gillespie birthday remembrance concert tonight.
Glad you won’t be there.
So’s Diz.
Bet on that as well.
AG
Arthur, I hope the concert was as terrific as it sounds.
I think I was careful not to call Ron Paul a racist. If not, I apologize. I (obviously) can’t read the man’s mind and heart. I generally avoid calling people “racist” because experience has taught me that it results in more heat than light. Better to focus on actions and behaviors.
I’ll just observe that the language the Pauls use in talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act is strikingly similar to language used by many segregationists at the time, and since.
For me, that sets off a warning signal—not unlike the one that Ronald Reagan set off when he opened his general election campaign in Philadelphia, MS with a speech endorsing “states’ rights”.
Again, I don’t know (and don’t particularly care much) about Ron Paul’s private views on race. The fact that the political faction of which he’s a prominent leader has a long and ongoing history of being a haven for many followers with racial, ethnic and religious prejudices that have as their target me and many of those I know, like, and love—that matters to me. YMMV.
I have written more regarding this foolishness in a new piece.
So Ron Paul is a racist, eh? A fascist too, I suppose? Get real.
Go there if you dare.
If you care.
AG
Arthur—why wouldn’t I dare?
(And I did.)
Kettle black.
He could win the nomination but he cannot win the general. If the rethugs don’t like him much now, imagine how hard it will be to get volunteers to work on his campaign natiowide.
ALTHOUGH he did raise more money than Obama from the fat cat Wall St. boys. MAYBE if he does clinch the nomination the rethugs will get behind him and work and vote for him, I don’t know.
But Obama will win in a landslide I predict.
As much as I would like to agree with you, don’t underestimate the possibility of getting Barack the Antichrist out of power as a motivating force for the base.
While there’s some wisdom in what each of you say, there’s more wisdom (electorally speaking) in James Carville’s 1992 mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
All the more reason for Obama and the congressional Democrats to fight on for the American Jobs Act, for the Fed to lower interest rates and signal its willingness for inflation to rise (say, to 4%), and for Occupy Wall Street to keep experimenting with ways to expose “that man behind the curtain”.
Was out for the afternoon watching two hunters slaughter a buck on my property line but came back thinking what a Romney Cabinet would look like.
First off, how about Frank Gaffney as WH Chief of Staff?
Booman, You’re problem is:”…but no one can picture anyone else getting the nomination, either.”
There are two possibilities:
Maybe you think that’s implausible, but time will tell.
Not that I disagree with Booman, but you’re all arguing over goat’s wool — de lana caprina rixamini. The GOP are screwed. Screwed, I tell you. Cedo sis grana mihi maizae tosta. (Please pass the popcorn.)