Romney Derangement Syndrome; Or, Why Mitt Is Most Likely Keeping His Powder Dry

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

I haven’t spent too much time here lately; been dealing with some things I’ll perhaps mention in a later post. That said, whenever I’ve gone online the past few days I’ve been overwhelmed with the feeling I’m swimming upstream against a torrent of tears shed by those who are utterly convinced all is lost because Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

Really?

According to these harbingers of doom, the attacks from his own side on Romney over his time at Bain Capital, for which he is being portrayed as the archtypical eeeeevil greedy capitalist foreclosing on the orphanage’s mortgage in the middle of a winter storm, will be the bane of his campaign should he in fact win the nomination. What’s more, anyone who endorses Romney — be it Nikki Haley or John Bolton or Jim DeMint’s people — is immediately cast out of the kingdom, banished for the crime of being a RINO establishment squish. No, really, they mean that. Especially that Bolton guy. He’s been such a marshmallow his entire career… and please tell me you don’t need me to tell you I’m being sarcastic. But I digress.

One of the complaints being lodged against Romney is that his defense of his time at Bain centers on the argument that he did the same thing there that Obama did with General Motors and Chrysler, realizing that in order to save a troubled company ofttimes it is necessary to cut labor costs by trimming the workforce. How can you possibly use that line of reasoning, comes the cry. Don’t you know you’re playing right into Obama’s hands by failing to differentiate between the two of you? Don’t you remember how Obama closed numerous car dealerships, the overwhelming majority of which were owned or operated by businesspeople associated with the Republican party? Don’t you remember how he screwed over the investors in these companies, many of them public and private pension funds, in favor of keeping the UAW’s fatcat unsustainable benefits plan rolling along? How then can you, under any circumstances, compare what you did to Obama’s actions?

Here’s why, and how. (Before I get into it, please not I’m not supporting Romney in the primary. Rick Santorum is my candidate.)

It’s high time people give Romney credit for having both a brain and common sense, each of which tell you that you don’t run a marathon at a sprinter’s pace. The primaries are just that — primaries. They come first. They also have little effect on the general election, which as some have apparently forgotten isn’t until November and to which most people don’t start paying attention until September. Why waste your energy, and spend the finite amount of capital campaign arguments/proposals carry, now? Do enough to win the nomination. Then step on the gas.

Romney is more than intelligent enough to soft-pedal his attacks on Obama until the majority of people are listening, which isn’t now. He is more than savvy enough to wait until a debate with Obama before letting loose with a lethal “but”let, a follow-up shot to his present defense: “Here are the things I did that you did. Now, here are the things you did I didn’t — play political games and reward your friends at the expense of hard-working Americans whose pension funds holders were hookwinked into investing in these companies you bailed out with taxpayer dollars, then cheated out of not only the promised profits from these investments but the initial investments themselves. I didn’t do that, Mr. President. But you did.”

Mitt’s keeping his powder dry until he needs it. Too bad so many are throwing theirs into their self-created river of woe.

P.S. Speaking of harbingers of doom, it’s a line from this classic track by Toy Matinee:

ADDENDUM: Cross-posted at Conservative Commune.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged | Leave a comment

Feminism By Any Other Name… Please

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

Because I can’t think of anything I’d rather do than kick a hornet’s nest — noreallyImenthat — I’m throwing in my two cents’ worth to the debate among Stacy McCain, Peter Ingemi (a/k/a Da Tech Guy) and Joy McCann about whether feminism can be a philosophy to which conservatives can subscribe. And to make it even more entertaining, I’ll also opine on whether feminism can be a philosophy to which Christians can subscribe. Apparently this sinus headache that’s beset me since sometime last Friday isn’t nearly enough pain. Anyway, here goes…

First, a look at what revived the formerly dormant debate. Maureen Dowd wrote a typical Maureen Dowd hit piece against Rick Santorum, managing to drag his wife Karen into the discussion:

While Karen Santorum was home-schooling their seven children in Virginia, Santorum soaked the Pennsylvania taxpayers to the tune of $100,000 by enrolling the children in a Pennsylvania cyber charter school.

The preface to Mrs. Santorum’s 2003 book of moral parables teaching children good manners was written by Joe Paterno, who warns against “a decline of civility and a coarsening of society.” And he knows how that goes.

Nothing like cheap shots by association, eh Maureen?

Ingemi (who has yet to put me on his blogroll, by the way… but I digress) fired back:

This post however is not so much about her piece as it is what occurred to me as I read it.

In Ms. Dowd’s piece, she goes after Mrs. Karen Santorum. This is no accident. The senator’s wife represents every choice that Ms. Dowd has rejected.

Mrs. Santorum is a faithful Catholic, long married, a mother of seven who has experienced the joys and the tragedies of motherhood, a person who has not let those tragedies destroy her or her faith. In an age when the popular culture rejects her choices, Mrs. Santorum decided to homeschool her surviving children to make sure they had an education that represented the culture and values that she found important.

Ms. Dowd has taken a different path. As she approaches her 60th year, she is at the top of her profession, a columnist at one of the most famous newspapers in the world. She has money, fame and awards for her writing. No one can honestly contest that she has earned these accolades though hard work and effort over decades. As a person newly trying to make a living with words written and spoken I appreciate her success an, if I reach even one-tenth the level of success she has, I’ll be proud of myself.

Both Mrs. Santorum’s choices and Ms. Dowd’s come with a price. I have no doubt that Mrs. Santorum could have, when she was Karen Garver, pursued a successful career in any field she chose. I’m sure on occasion, when the kids have been particularly difficult, she briefly wished it was so.

Ms. Dowd’s choice has left her alone. I’m not privy to her dating history and, frankly, it’s not my business. Suffice to say she has not chosen marriage and I see no reason to believe she will. As for children, at 60, that’s unlikely even with the aid of modern science.

These are two different paths. This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that the difference is I see no evidence that Mrs. Santorum begrudges Ms. Dowd’s choices while, reading her column today (and from my memory of her writing) I can’t say the same for Ms. Dowd, who seems to resent the very thought that in 2012 a woman might choose Karen Santorum’s path. And perhaps Ms. Dowd resents that Mrs. Santorum can, once her children are grown, choose a new path(.)

Next, McCain chimed in:

This is what the self-declared “conservative feminists” refuse to acknowledge: Feminism has no meaning outside the context of rights and equality. Once you begin defining the roles and relations of men and women in such terms, you have taken an irretrievable step down the slippery slope toward radical egalitarianism.  The very fact that people who call themselves conservatives are incapable of recognizing what should be self-evident – that the radical conclusion of the egalitarian argument is implicit in its premises – should profoundly trouble those concerned about the future prospects of conservatism in America.

McCann replied:

Stacy, your argument is based on the false notion that “alike and equal are the same thing.”

There is such a thing as “equal but different.”

It’s a shame you are unable to grasp this.

There’s more in the comments area of McCain’s blog post whence McCann’s comment came, including a rather heated exchange between her and Zilla of the Resistance (who didn’t include me as a winner in her First Annual Zilla Awards for Awesomeness in the Dextrosphere!… ah well, maybe next year… but again I digress).

And here’s where I chime in.

If one accepts the dictionary definition of feminism as accurate (“the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men”), then certainly there can be no objection to McCann’s insistence that the term is applicable, given how it is a philosophy of equality without denying the differences between men and women. However, the Left has long co-opted the word and used it to mean not simple equality but further claiming that there are no differences between men and women. This, as I read it, is the crux of the dispute between McCann and McCain, with the former insisting the dictionary definition is all that matters while McCain argues the term’s additional meaning, courtesy of a leftist agenda, renders it unsuitable for conservatives to use.

Of the two, I believe McCain’s argument carries more weight. Feminism’s prevailing connotation is not mere equality, but, rather, an aggressive agenda demanding gender neutrality — an agenda which simply does not work in the real world. Certainly there is no Scriptural support for such a view; men and women have clearly defined roles in relationships. While in a technical sense the word is usable, common sense and current culture dictate it to be one conservatives had best leave alone. We need our own term. ‘Nuff said on that.

There is a remaining topic begging discussion. Ingemi refers to it (in the above quotation) in the context of Dowd and Mrs. Santorum (he goes on to reference Meghan McCain’s negative statement about Sen. Santorum). Namely, he contends that Dowd disparages Mrs. Santorum for choosing the life of a stay-at-home mother. I’m not as convinced as he is that Dowd is doing so, but given Dowd’s track record it is entirely possible.

Sooner or later in life, we must all choose between family and solitude. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, or even a spouse. But eventually, those who choose solitude must come to the realization of Walter Gripp in The Martian Chronicles: I’m all alone.

Which isn’t the fault of those who choose otherwise.

ADDENDUM: Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom lays out the case for not abandoning the term “feminism”:

Conservatives need constantly to remind people that such perversions of the language — easy deconstructions and refigurations that then disguise themselves beneath terms that they hope will continue to elicit positive connotations (liberal, fairness, tolerance, equality, diversity) — are how the left routinely pretends to seize a moral high ground they have not otherwise earned, capitalizing on the veneer such terms carry that redound to our foundational ideals of individual liberty and equality before the law while those who’ve usurped the terms simultaneously and ironically work to replace individual autonomy with political collectivism, and an legislated inequality that redounds to their favor.

Posted in Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

A Brief Early Evening Recap Of This Morning’s GOP Presidential Debate In New Hampshire

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

I should get some kind of reward for getting up at 6:00 AM on a Sunday to watch a political debate. Instead, all I got was a continuation of a sinus headache that’s been plaguing me the past two days. Ah well. Anyway…

  • David Gregory is as blatant a left-wing shill as George Stephanopoulos, only more obnoxious and abrasive. He’s also more cowardly, visibly shrinking in front of Rick Perry when Perry called him out over whichever lame question he was asking at the time.
  • As usual, questions about issues that matter — the economy, national debt, border security and so on — were either soft-pedaled or avoided altogether. Instead, it was more of the same old gotcha gunk, including the ol’ “so how will you eeeeevil Republicans tell the poor, orphans and widows they’re being thrown out in the snow when you foreclose on their mortgage” bit. Some bit — see Huntsman, Jon — some didn’t.
  • Overall, the best performances were by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. They stayed on message, didn’t fall into any moderator-set traps and kept their cool. There was the stock issue attempt to trip up Santorum on social conservative issues, which as it always does with Santorum failed miserably.
  • Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney sullied their otherwise solid jobs with needless whining and jabs at each other near the end. Don’t let yourself be played, gentlemen.
  • Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman need to go home. Now.
  • I really missed Michele Bachmann both last night and this morning.

Anyway, the New Hampshire primary is this Tuesday, followed by South Carolina on the 21st and Florida on the 31st. This is half the number of debates remaining this month: 16th in Myrtle Beach (FOX), 19th in Charleston (CNN), 23rd in Tampa (NBC) and 26th in Jacksonville (CNN). Be still our beating hearts.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Brief Late Night Recap Of Tonight’s New Hampshire GOP Presidential Debate

Posted on January 7, 2012 by Jerry Wilson
Shouldn't that be "Our Voice - Vote Our Way Or Else," ABC?

Shouldn't that be "Our Voice - Vote Our Way Or Else," ABC?

A few thoughts about tonight’s GOP debate in New Hampshire.

The debate’s overriding theme was the total ineptitude of the moderators, so pathetically in the tank for Obama they were incapable of asking a single question of genuine interest. They carefully avoided any subject that might possibly reflect poorly on their Chosen One. The economy was barely discussed; the national debt avoided altogether as well as border security, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and on and on. Instead, huge amounts of time were wasted on non-issues like whether states have the right to ban contraceptives. The ultimate weak moment of the whole affair came on ABC News’ online streaming of the debate, when a sharp retort by Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller about how genuine issues of interest were avoided in favor of nonstarters was responded to by a unified cry of “well, Rick Santorum is the one who keeps talking about gay marriage.” Pathetic in the extreme.

Also, what on earth is wrong with Diane Sawyer? Her rambling and sometimes incoherent questions leads one to wonder whether she is suffering from a medical condition or simply sloshed. Regardless of which is correct, it is painfully obvious she needs help.

As to the Republican candidates in the debate, it’s difficult to say anyone actually won the evening. Each candidate had their good and bad moments. Unfortunately, the truly bad moments far outstripped the good ones. Then again, with the lame questions they were being asked, it’s impossible to not say they did the best they could with the atrocious material they were given.

Rick Perry once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when, after what had been a very strong performance, he commented that he would send troops back into Iraq. Given the war-weary nature of the American public, such a suggestion, regardless of whether it is a correct notion in terms of defending American interests against Iran, cannot possibly play well with voters. The Perry supporters who constantly whine about why his record in Texas is being ignored are themselves ignoring how Perry, from the very beginning, has run an atrocious campaign during which he has constantly shot himself in the foot. It is difficult to see him lasting much longer in the race.

Mitt Romney turned in a typical Romney performance; that is to say, he did well. His blowback against George Stephanopoulos’ ludicrous question concerning whether states have the right to ban contraception was a moment truly worthy of how Newt Gingrich has repeatedly called out the debate moderators for their general lame and Obama-worshiping act.

Speaking of Gingrich, he did fairly well as did Rick Santorum. It would’ve been nice had they been more able to get into their economic vision for America, but there again the moderators’ pathetic performance prevented any such in-depth discussion.

Ron Paul was, well, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman was, well, Jon Huntsman. ‘Nuff said.

Since I can’t think of anything I would rather do at 6 o’clock on a Sunday morning than watch another GOP presidential debate, I will do my best to do so. In the meantime, brief though it may be, g’night.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

I’m With Rick… Rick Santorum

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

Well, my first choice for President in 2012 decided to not run, and my second choice has withdrawn from the race. After shaking off the blues induced by the above, I’ve examined the remaining candidates and made a choice.

Henceforth, I’m fighting for Rick Santorum.

Here’s why.

Consider Santorum’s position on the issues:

  • He believes in the individual’s right to own firearms.
  • He wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with genuine health care reform.
  • Curbing government spending and reforming the entitlements that presently are drowning the nation in debt.
  • Strong opposition to Iran and equally strong support for Israel.
  • Re-establishment of traditional morals as a guideline for government policies and practices

From a conservative standpoint what’s not to like?

Oh, yeah, that morals thing. I suspect it’s the latter that offends many Santorum detractors, which says far more about them than it does him.

The problem with Santorum, that isn’t really a problem, is how he reveals the utterly vapid nature of South Park Republicans.

The attacks on Santorum’s unwavering stance on social conservative positions by those on the right are no different than the despicable attacks by the left on how he and his family handled his wife’s miscarriage. In both cases, it reveals the depravity of those making the attacks. Are we to excuse such behavior for no reason other than somebody agreeing with us politically? Are our beliefs, among those of us who do believe, that inconsequential to our daily lives?

The continued whining from pundits on the right about Santorum reveal their total disconnect from the populace as a whole. People who connect with Santorum, as demonstrated in Iowa, like what they see and hear. It was the people in Iowa, not the media and certainly not new media, who voted for Santorum. For that matter, it was the people in Iowa, not the media and certainly not new media, who voted for Romney. Why do those on the right, who claim to speak for the people, so openly disregard the people’s opinion when declared through the ballot?

Back to Santorum. No matter how people on either side of the aisle try to ignore it, there is a very strong and stubborn streak running through the American psyche that admires someone who doesn’t change their tune regardless of whether they are winning, losing, popular, unpopular, or any other possible place. Santorum has stuck to his guns throughout. People respect this. People respond to this. I respond to it. I agree with it, and him. That is why I support Rick Santorum in his campaign to be the next President of the United States of America.

But what about Rick Perry, comes the cry from his supporters.

Long answer short: if he wins the nomination, yes I’ll support him. Other than that, no way.

Why? Simple.

Can you imagine the reaction among Perry supporters if Sarah Palin had acted in the same way as their candidate? Running for reelection for governor in 2010, winning and promising her constituents she would serve her full term only to run for president two years later? Executing horrible gaffe after horrible gaffe on the campaign trail? Not knowing the legal voting age? Not knowing how many justices there are on the Supreme Court? Outspending her competitors by a huge margin in Iowa only to be destroyed in the actual voting? Saying you’re going home to reassess things after the disastrous caucus only to announce the very next day that you went on a jog and everything is fine and you’re back in? She would be lambasted and fricasseed alive. Yet with Perry, it’s all good and if we’d all just rally around him he’d steamroll the competition on his way to the Oval Office. Uh-huh. This no doubt explains his currently polling at 5% in South Carolina which at least in theory should be darn near his backyard. And Palinistas are the delusional ones? Enough.

I’ve made my choice.

I’m for Rick Santorum.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Not Her Time

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

Michele Bachmann withdrew from the GOP Presidential campaign today, a move not altogether unexpected given her dismal showing in the Iowa caucus. Her speech was moving, laced with emotion, faith, Scripture and unashamed love of country.

My heart was heavy as I listened to her speak. I had stated long ago that should Sarah Palin decide to not run, Bachmann was my preferred candidate. She, far more so than any other candidate, mirrored my political views. I admired her outspokenness, her spunk and her hammering away against the glass ceiling.

It has long befuddled me why Bachmann was scorned by so many self-identified conservatives. When the Tea Party movement first gained momentum, she was one of the few politicians to openly embrace it, and in at the least the beginning this was wholeheartedly returned. However, the moment she announced a run at the Oval Office Bachmann was made a pariah. Whether this was disappointed Sarah Palin supporters venting their frustration over Bachmann not supporting a run by Palin, which later turned into barely controlled fury when Palin decided to not run, skepticism over Bachmann’s qualifications which until that moment had been considered stellar, or a healthy dose of good ol’ misogyny is subject to debate. Not so debatable is that she was treated poorly by both the GOP establishment and pundits, professional and amateur alike. Only the high-flying radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck rallied to her defense. It wasn’t enough.

Now, what do we have left? A moderate (Romney), a loose cannon (Gingrich), a foreign policy flake (Paul), a social conservative whose political stance is of a more moderate timbre (Santorum), and an indecisive crony capitalist who’s out one day, back in the next and slags on voters who dared to select another (Perry). Be still my beating Tea Party heart. The race for the GOP nomination is turning into Oakland. There’s not much there there.

Yes, I’ll file away my disappointment and fervently support the eventual nominee. For now, though, I’m going to follow the advice of Robin Trower in “Too Rolling Stoned”: I’ll think I’ll just sit this one out.

As for Michele, this one’s for you.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged | 3 Comments

Get Over It (And Yourself)

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

Glancing at my Twitter feed today, seeing it replete with internecine battles, brings to mind an admonition delivered in a somber moment from our greatest comedian:

Seriously, people. Why so venomous toward each other? We don’t want the bad guys to win, do we? Although there are more than a few among us who have already thrown in the towel, declared 2012 a lost cause and moved on to dream of a Marco Rubio (or Paul Ryan, etc) Christmas in 2016. Seriously? This year is a goner?

Let us review. Massive unemployment, crushing debt, a foreign policy of appeasement combined with willful ignorance of reality, open warfare on business, serial abuse of executive privileges, and a smothering acid flow of government regulations seeking to run all aspects of our professional and personal lives. And there’s no way a GOP candidate can beat Obama? Bull. The only guaranteed losers in 2012 are people who embrace the defeatist mindset, one that sulks and snarls whenever a whiff of contradiction comes its way.

Example: I’m reminded of an article I read on Forbes the other day which insisted that Best Buy was in a slow death spiral; never mind how every one I’ve ever been to is packed any time of any day or night with a steady stream of purchases rolling out the door. But back to the article. The author’s primary reason for his denouement? One bad customer service experience. This, not unsurprisingly, led to a plethora of comments where people occasionally defended but mostly damned Best Buy as every slight, real or imagined, ever inflicted by someone who wears a blue polo shirt and khakis to work was told and retold.

Being a veteran of the retail wars, I read the comments with a bit of a jaundiced eye. The blithefully ignored contradiction of simultaneously demanding every retail employee be a complete expert in all aspects of anything sold by a store while insisting prices be the absolute minimum, thus forcing the retailer to cut all costs including labor to the bone — bye-bye, days when store employees were genuine experts and paid commensurately — seldom fails to rear its empty head whenever complaints about customer service are raised. Certainly genuinely poor customer service shouldn’t be tolerated. But neither should the ignorance of an overdemanding public unwilling to pay for what it wants.

This principle also applies to politics. Far too many folk demand that either all candidates achieve perfection, this being defined as agreeing with the individual on every everything, or that all others see things as they do and love the candidate(s) they love while loathing the candidate(s) they loathe. This grows even more farcical when people start crying about why so-and-so and/or their supporters aren’t 110% behind their choice… after trashing so-and-so along with their supporters.

Bit of an inflated valuation of one’s own opinion there.

Another trait among Twitter twits is decrying the popular vote when it’s not popular with them. How could people have voted for that joker instead of my candidate who is clearly God’s gift? How can people not agree with me that all the candidates are losers? Why did that state get to vote before mine and screw everything up? The list goes on. Instead of vox populi, vox dei it’s “STFU — you don’t see it MY way!!!” Obviously a new technique for community building.

So much of this stems from lack of respect for others and lack of genuine conviction about who someone supports. A hypersensitive, itchy trigger finger forever ready to blaze away at anyone who looks at its owner or the candidate they support cross-eyed reveals not passionate support but underlying insecurity about a candidate. The circular firing squad is the weakling’s realm.

The 2012 election is not lost. It’s barely started. Buck up and suck it up, people. Quit imitating the rugrats Jesus talked about:

They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other:

“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry.’

No one is under the obligation to be as impressed with you as you choose to be impressed with yourself. Get over it and get on with it.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Tagged | Leave a comment

Iowa: The Rick Santorum Forum

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

With the votes cast and as of this writing almost all counted, it appears that Rick Santorum will eke out a razor-thin win over Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus. Ron Paul will finish third, this causing great delight among the Coast to Coast AM audience.

Most everyone seems shocked by Santorum’s win except for Santorum himself and his loyal contingent of followers who love the man for his adherence to both political and social conservatism. For whatever reason, he is deeply disliked by many on the right side of the aisle despite holding views that match theirs. Maybe they feel he shows them up by being able to change diapers one-handed (six kids will do that for you). Or he’s too darn Catholic. Whatever. He is at the moment the most successful conservative candidate, so those who until now have held their noses at the mention of his name while simultaneously decrying the absence of a true conservative in the race might want to learn how to say the Rosary and get with the program.

If Santorum can manage solid showings against Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina, carrying legitimate momentum into Florida, this could get interesting. That said, if Romney wins handily in the aforementioned states and then wins big in Florida, the Republican primary season will swiftly become as disinteresting as the Democratic side. By the way, have I mentioned lately that Romney isn’t the antichrist?

Back to Iowa. With Rick Perry looking like he’s heading back to Texas and staying there, the wailing and gnashing of teeth among his devotees can be heard across the land. Or, more accurately, across social media which has turned decidedly anti-social as of late, with circular firing squads roaming about seeking whomever they may devour. And there’s genuine wondering about why new media isn’t making a dent in the public conscious?

What Perry’s failure reveals are two fundamentals of the body politic circa 2012 A.D. First, campaigning counts, particularly when your target is intentionally or no your own foot. Second, the utter impotence of RedState, Ace and others in moving public opinion a butterfly’s sneeze worth cannot be overlooked. Perhaps, gentlemen and ladies, that energy you expended bashing Sarah Palin and her supporters in lieu of building a case for your candidate was unwisely spent.

Anyway, thanks for putting up with us, Iowa. Now it’s New Hampshire’s turn. The hawkeye state? This one’s for you.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Leave a comment

A Relatively Simple Guide To The Primaries

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

No, Nancy Reagan isn't running, and yes, I know Herman Cain has suspended his campaign. Best photo I could find of all the candidates, okay?

Today — and not a moment too soon — the Iowa caucus will transpire. Even though the vote is non-binding in terms of delegates to the GOP convention, the results are eagerly awaited as they will provide a strong indication of which candidates have done the best job of getting people to turn out and select them in a non-binding vote.

Sure is a lot of work for not much of anything other than bragging rights.

Anyway, the Iowa caucus officially kicks off the 2012 presidential campaign, although to be precise it started about 3.7 seconds after Barack Obama was declared the winner in 2008. The first phase of the campaign is devoted to each party selecting its candidate, although given how Obama is running unopposed the Democratic side of things promises to be mighty dull. Don’t worry, though. It’ll still get full media attention as Obama’s massive wins in each state are heralded. Provided the media is provided with free booze.

A caucus itself, at least in respect to how it’s done in Iowa, is a fascinating process. Each candidate can send someone or someones to extol their virtues to the gathered voters, after which the ballots are cast. The ballots themselves are simple blank pieces of paper, this hopefully not reflecting the space in-between the voter’s ears. After the votes are cast, they are tabulated and sent to the Iowa Republican Party which announces them to the media, thanks them for coming and in coordination with local businesses presents them with their bar tab. It’s not uncommon for milk and cookies to be served at the caucus sites, these usually supplied by different candidates with the exception of Ron Paul who will be offering tinfoil hats made out of plated copies of his newsletter.

As noted, Iowa is but the first stop on the primary trail. Next Tuesday (January 10th) will be New Hampshire’s turn, where the vote will be conducted via normal ballot-casting fashion in precincts run by hobbits named Hamp. After New Hampshire, we get two weeks of campaigning in South Carolina prior to its January 21st primary. Rumors that Rick Perry will lead an assault on Fort Sumter as revenge for South Carolina governor Nikki Haley endorsing Mitt Romney are presently being investigated. January concludes with the Florida primary on the 31st, and is the first vote that actually matters in terms of number of delegates. The winner will go to Disney World, where Mickey Mouse will tell him or her to get off his lawn.

February features four caucuses and three primaries, which is perfect as seven is the perfect number. The Nevada caucus on February fourth has 99 44/100% of each candidate’s staff insisting they need to be there in person to promote the candidate, especially if the caucus site happens to be the Kit Kat Klub where Wanda LaLustee is appearing nightly. Maine’s caucus runs for seven days (4th-11th) as they will be serving slow-cooked clam chowder in addition to the milk and cookies, while Colorado’s caucus on the seventh will have its vote conducted by either ballot or Tebowing depending on how he does in the playoffs. Minnesota also has its caucus on the seventh; same for the Missouri primary which is non-binding. Most candidates have already stated they’re taking the seventh as a day of rest. They’ll need it; the next primaries are Arizona and Michigan on the 28th, which promise to be rather important in terms of which candidate(s) spent the greatest amount of time in Arizona as opposed to Michigan. Probably all of them.

March has a total of nineteen primaries and caucuses, including ten on March 6th which is dubbed Super Tuesday. It’s interesting to note that the states where caucuses are being held on Super Tuesday are Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota, this confirming the suspicion that the GOP uses weather as a way of filtering out the riff-raff. However, Hawaii also uses the caucus format, with it being held on the 13th. All staff workers who have recovered from Nevada will be lobbying to go there. For the team, of course. Right after they get back from the Virgin Islands caucus on the 10th. Never mind Kansas has a caucus on the same date. After Super Tuesday, the highlight will be Illinois on the 20th, where elections are miraculous events as multitudes rise from the dead to cast their ballots.

April has four primaries on the third and five on the 24th. The big one on the third is Texas, while the 24th has New York and Pennsylvania as its main prizes. Yee-haw and fuggedaboutit.

By May the nomination may well be wrapped up, but why stop with the primaries? Seven states will go to the polls, including Indiana where the main interest will be who’s on the pole for the Indianapolis 500.

Things finally come to a conclusion in June, with five primaries on the fifth including California. We’d use the caucus method out here, but given how the Republicans would have to meet in the catacombs to keep their identities secret while the Democrats caucus every day at different Occupy encampments, a primary is probably the best way to go. The whole thing concludes with Utah on the 26th, which if the nominee is known by then will provide him or her with ample opportunity to rub salt in the wounds of their vanquished opponents.

Gee, this is going to be fun.

And remember… it’s up to each of us to decide.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election | Leave a comment

Political Shtick

Posted on January 2, 2012 by Jerry Wilson

Picking up from an earlier post:

One of the lessons my late father taught me was about the place, and purpose, of humor. His philosophy was that given how many situations in life are desperately unfunny, whenever the opportunity for humor arises, seize it. Which he did; I can still hear the sound of his laughter roaring through the house, be it at a television show or a book he was reading, often to my mother’s chagrin as she preferred a more discrete decorum. Although, in her defense, she could be pretty darn punny herself.

As he said, and as Regina Spektor beautifully sang, there are times in life when neither it nor God are funny:

Not that this doesn’t stop some people from trying to make everything a joke. It’s all they can do. They’re too uninventive to break free from their shtick.

Case in point would be one David Javerbaum, he of the self-celebratory New York City crowd (“oooh, he used to write for Jon Stewart!“) currently promoting his new book which is a memoir by God. Because nothing beats God humor for pretending to be edgy; never mind it’s as tired as it comes.

Most comedy relies on some form of shtick, the trick being whether the audience finds it funny. Some do, some don’t. I know people who declare The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension to be the funniest movie mankind has ever seen, whereas the one time I watched it left me utterly unmoved until ten minutes before the end when I muttered, “Oh, this is supposed to be satire, isn’t it.” At which, to me, it was a complete failure. And nothing in comedy is worse than failed satire.

Said all that to say this. If you can have shtick comedy, can you also have shtick politics?

By shtick politics I’m referring more to pundits who cover it than politics or politicians themselves, although many of those involved are quite clichéd in word and deed. They can be dealt with later. For now, let’s talk about the talking heads (no, not David Byrne and company. Never did like that band. But I digress).

Shtick isn’t limited to humor. There’s plenty of room for humor when discussing politics. Mark Steyn is a prime example of genuine inventive comedic ability. Where things fall into shtick is when an overriding one-size-fits-all theme emerges in a pundit’s work, one that throttles all authentic insight and commentary.

It can be safely argued that a reliance on shtick indicates there is no genuine insight and commentary, but shtick itself does not indicate this. Case in point would be Rush Limbaugh’s well-honed self-mocking pompous act. You know he’s kidding. He knows he’s kidding. But it does it anyway, because it’s part of his on-air persona. It’s the lesser lights who regurgitate whatever a Limbaugh, Steyn or Mark Levin say as though they are genuinely adding to the discourse that are the true purveyors of shtick.

Politics isn’t a game, and neither is political commentary. Yet so many make it a game in which the sole object isn’t winning over hearts and minds, but rather who can grab the biggest piece of the pie everyone else is attempting to claim as their own.

Examples? Sure.

  • Don’t You Dare Doubt My Political Creds – I Post Twenty Times A Day: Volume rules!
  • Macha Chica: I have buns n’ poses… er, guns n’ roses! Plus tattoos and, when convenient, married with children. But don’t worry. I’m a Bible-believing husband-submitting Christian. Or a good girl. Or something.
  • I’m Big On Twitter: How could I be anything but an expert when I have all these followers?
  • How Can You Possibly Believe You’re Right When I Just Gave You A #Headdesk: You’re so not worth talking with about anything, I’m not going to bother defending anything I say. Oh, and if you don’t like it? Don’t follow me!

There are more, but you get the idea.

All of the above have one unified cry: Why aren’t people listening to me?

Um… because you’re not saying anything that hasn’t already been said, and better?

It’s almost comical. The only problem is, no one is laughing.

PS: Speaking of laughing…

Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, Political Bloggers, Politics | Leave a comment