Monday, December 12, 2011

Overheard in the Office:

Me: "Wait, what? 'Gingrich A Favorite Among Evangelicals'? They want him to pledge 'that there will be no moral scandals in a Gingrich White House.' Sure! He'll promise you a pony, too!"

RX: "Two ponies in every pot! And an abandoned wife in every garage!"

Since no self-labeled big-C Conservative in their right mind would vote for Romney, watching the gyrations and rationalizations as the more conventionally appealing candidates (at least to the Evangelical wing of the party,) drop away is definitely interesting. Having to hold one's nose is never pleasant.

While the God Squad and I don't see eye-to-eye on... well, any social issue, actually, I'm surprised to find them endorsing a guy who seems pretty secular in his day-to-day life and would appear to only make the socially conservative mouth-noises to court the fundamentalist vote. Me? I don't like him because he thinks that government can solve problems, which is rather like swallowing the spider to catch the fly.

EDITED TO ADD: I just figured out what it is I'm feeling here. Watching Gingrich try to appeal to the Values Voters crowd gives me the exact same sensation I had when law'n'order social conservative Bob Barr ran as a Libertarian: "Here is a man who will bite the head off a live chicken to get your vote." When somebody wants something that badly, it gives me the creeping willies.

44 comments:

Bram said...

This is the sound conservative make as they scrape the bottom of the barrel. After Herman Cain self-immolated, the choices got really grim.

It's like reaching into your pocket for more ammo when you really need some and finding none.

Tam said...

Who was that guy who came in second in the last Ioway poll? It wasn't Romney... I swear I'd remember his name if they'd actually mention it on TV just once.

russell1200 said...

My mother would fit within the Evangelical catagory. She was making Newt noises. I pointed out to her that he was the only candidate out there that (without polemics) could be described as evil.

She stopped the noise and got real thoughtful.

warlocketx said...

The name of this technique is "stereotyping in depth". I spent the first twenty years of my life building skills in it.

Gingrich doesn't conform to the tastes of evangelicals, as you define them; he nevertheless gets their support. Instead of revising your definition, you fall back on another feature of the stereotype, i.e., "them folks is so stoopid Newt can fool 'em."

It's a useful attitude in that it allows you to remain oblivious to just why Gingrich is gaining in popularity. Hint: a commenter suggested that he could cinch the nomination by looking someone in the eye and saying, "The world is falling apart, and all you can think about is my personal life twenty years ago." I don't think it would cinch it, but it would gain him another few poll-points, minimum.

I don't want Gingrich as President, but I want Mitt "Not Quite Obama" Romney even less.

Regards,
Ric

Tam said...

warlocketx,

"you fall back on another feature of the stereotype, i.e., "them folks is so stoopid Newt can fool 'em.""

Speaking of stereotyping in depth, nowhere in my post did I suggest that.

The religious right is left with three serious players at this moment: Romney, The Candidate Whose Name The Media Will Not Speak, and Gingrich. Obviously there's a bunch of nose-holding going on as the latter is picked, and people generally offer rationalizations when forced to nose-hold.

(How many big-C Conservatives pulled that lever for McCain in '08 while explaining that they were really voting for Palin? Same thing.)

Pakkinpoppa said...

I'll hold my nose and vote against Zero, but won't be happy about it. I don't see any of the current Elephant Party offerings stuffing the Supreme Court with people who believe in the ENTIRE Constitution. And with Rumney, he thinks we ought to have permits to exercise the most important one at minimum.

Pakkinpoppa said...

Oh, and that "reach in your pocket because you need more ammo and finding none"... thanks a lot for that, one of my longest nightmare themes, either that or finding out I brought the wrong stuff. Double yuck.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Well, it seems Ron Paul is thinking of pulling a Ross Perot, so come next November....of course,until then, we'll have to deal with 30 hours a night of MSM coverage of whoever the Front Runner of the Hour is and why he/she is the Worst Candidate since Reconstruction until the culling of the herd settles down.

Jeffrey Quick said...

To be fair, the last one (the one whom he supposedly served papers to on her deathbed...she's still alive) divorced him. And now that he's Catholic, he's run out of excuses; he's stuck with Callista...which by some accounts is punishment enough. And I will say he got points with me on Sat. for the way he handled the individual mandate question.

However, that doesn't change the fact that he wants to fix things (in the veterinary sense?) and has way too many ideas for doing so. Me, I'm supporting The Candidate Whose Name... oh hell, RON PAUL (OMG! He spoke The Name! Stone him! Call out every coblogger at AoSHQ to get their rocks off...)

Tam said...

Jeffrey Quick,

Yeah, I don't get that, either. John Stewart hit the nail on the head when he called Ron Paul "Tea Party Patient Zero", and yet the small-government Tea Party crowd is finding themselves lining up behind the Contract-breaking Coward of the Conservative Congress?

Bram said...

I don't think the Tea Party is "lining up behind" Gingrich. More like they are frantically trying to figure out which candidate sucks the least.

I wouldn't be surprised if some do settle on Paul (I might when it comes time to pull the lever) - even if they have serious reservations about his foreign policy.

If a Jindal, Daniels, or Christie jumped in right now - he would run away with it easy.

rickn8or said...

Newt made himself a non-starter with me when he drank the Global Warmening Koolaid.

warlocketx said...

Nice comeback, Tam. Reminds me of me, circa 1967 or so.

I'll vote for not-Obama, but I no longer have a dog in the fight. My guy's been running a major State, rather successfully, for a decade -- but he didn't do well on American Idol, so he's disqualified.

If you get your news from the MSM, they'll pick the Republican most like a Democrat and savage the others, right up to the main event, when they'll fall on him like a ton of bricks (John McCain, q.v.). Gingrich is popular because he's willing to challenge that procedure out loud, which gains him lots of points despite his being otherwise pretty darned unattractive. Why the other candidates don't take note of that is a mystery.

Regards,
Ric
(wv: "bentsc". Well, yeah.)

Tam said...

warlocketx,

"If you get your news from the MSM, they'll pick the Republican most like a Democrat and savage the others..."

I know you may find this shocking, but this ain't my first presidential election.

And if you were my age in '67, I must say that you're sharp as a tack for a dude crowding 90. :p

Tam said...

Oh, and I don't like your guy because I don't like his politics, not because of any "American Idol" nonsense.

Just because somebody sees eye-to-eye with me on the gun thing, that doesn't necessarily mean we agree on anything else.

og said...

Amusing how the evangelicals will even pick an icky Catholic over a Mormon and a [strike]Raelian, or whatever Ron is now. [/strike] Baptist.

og said...

Crap, I hate it when tags don't work.

Anonymous said...

What difference does it make?

The GOP Establishment has rather skillfully cornered the GOP masses into voting for the "Turd Behind Door #1 (Newton)" or the "Turd Behind Door #2 (Mittens)". These two are so far inside the beltway that they could give McCain a colonoscopy at no charge.

Obama is going to win re-election. You can count on it. They don't call the GOP the "Stupid Party" for nothing -- they have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory against the weakest incumbent in a couple of generations.

You won't convince people to drop the shit sandwich by offering them a turd burger instead -- people are going to stay home on Election Day and Obama will get (barely) re-elected.

karrde said...

One quick question:

Is this another case of news people saying what they think they see?

(Compare with racist protests against our current President.)

Or are they saying something that's actually happening?

B.S. philosopher said...

My parents, being lapsed Pentecostals, would probably qualify as what you call evangelicals.

I still have leanings that way due to my upbringing. This despite being a happy-go-lucky agnostic bemused by the antics of cult of the zombie Jewish carpenter

We all despise Newt.

My father has said that he might just stay home rather than vote for any of the current GOP field.

I've reached the point where I've realized that voting for the shit sandwich instead of the 8 course shit buffet simply gets you more shit sandwiches.

I've voted for Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, &c. They all sucked. Even when Dubya won, he ran to the left on economic issues.

I can't bring myself to vote for a third party due to seeing what Ross "ears" Perot did by spiking Bush Sr. (and arguably Dole)and giving us Billy-bob Clinton.

Kristopher said...

The TEA party was lined up behind Palin.

Now that she's quit, they are stuck with the rest of us, trying to find something at the shit buffet with less shit on it, as opposed to the Democrat's shit-firehose set up at face level in front of a shit-appreciation chair, complete with tie-down straps.

Anonymous said...

I'm agreeing with Karrde on this one.

We're being a little hard carnival geeks aren't we? They never asked for PAC money from anyone.

Gerry

Joe in PNG said...

You know, Newt reminds me of Winston Churchill (something that was pointed out at National Review)... pre-WW2 Churchill, that is. The one who flipped and flopped, who would adopt really stupid ideas and defend them to the death until he changed his mind... in other words, not always a good thing.

Newt is a great "sausage maker", but who knows if he'll use his powers for good, or if he'll get the idea he's the guy who can make Big Government work!

The Jack said...

What's also fun is to wade over to NRO's The Corner to see the passive-agressive and not-so-passive fighting between the Gingrich supporters and the Romney supporters.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with bachmann ?

B.S. philosopher said...

Bachmann is bug-nuts crazy and about 5 IQ points below room temperature.

She's got the crazy eyes too.

On top of that she's also a little too religiousey. And I grew up in tongue-talking holy roller church.

I would vote for Palin in a heartbeat. She might not have an Ivy-league degree, but look how well the last two guys who did have done.

Anonymous said...

What is up with this "crazy" meme? I've seen no evidence of it. Just MSM bull-s#!t because there is nothing else to zing her with. She's pro 2A and the Jeezus stuff should serve her well in the primaries, right? I dunno, she seems likable and would CRUSH zerObama.

Tam said...

What's wrong with Bachmann? Hang on, let me see if I can think of anything on which I agree with her, outside of the 2A stuff...

Well, she talks a good game on taxes... ummm... hang on... and, well, we're more-or-less in line on most economic issues that I can see...

Then again, she did vote to renew the PATRIOT Act, and I can't think of a single social issue that she and I are not in diametric opposition.

Let me flip this around: Suppose you found a candidate that was strong on the WO(S)D, wanted to ban abortion, outlaw gay marriage open the borders, lower taxes, reinstate the ban on gays in the military, require federal gun registration, and repeal the PATRIOT Act. Would you vote for them? Why not? Surely you agree on a few of those issues, probably at least as many as I agree with Bachmann. Or Obama, for that matter.

Larry said...

I get the same vibe off of Newt as you do. Looks like another round of brown on the buffet. Think I'll have a salad.

jbrock said...

Well, here's Ron Paul making more sense than the rest of the candidates put together.

Awright, so it's really a BLR treatment of Ron Paul. I would still, in a shrew's heartbeat, vote for any candidate who said those things in public too.

Joe in PNG said...

Cracked had a pretty good point this morning. The reason we're getting a D-list turd buffet is because the Repubs are up against an incumbent. Incumbent presidents tend to have an advantage- even Barry the Incompetent. So, the A listers are going to sit this one out until 2016. Because nothing spells 'political death' like getting nominated for president, and then losing. Unless you're Nixon.

John A said...

Oh my, Little Lizard thinks I do not like him because of gus "personal" life? The first time I noticed him was during the "Contract with America" days, when he was still in his first marriage, and my take was that he was not someone I would want to have any appreciable power.

For a better-informed series of takes:
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/

the pawnbroker said...

You know, Newt and Rush could trade places and neither one would likely miss a beat.

That about says it all for me.

Pathfinder said...

Hmmmm - 33 comments from a bunch of self-important folks, all of which amount to nothing more than bho gets re-elected. And it's not even reasoned discourse, more akin to a 2AM college dorm conversation on a Friday night.

I don't like this one's social policies (how's bho's social programs working for ya?).

This one is crazy (and bho is what? Maybe not crazy, but maybe Marxists are fundamentally nuts since they are so contrary to human nature).

This one goes to church too much (too easy with bho).

This one cheated on his wife (bho's married to Michelle of the dead, cold eyes - need we discuss?)

This one is like another person I don't like (shall we review bho's czar list? Shall we, huh?).

Way to pull it together folks. The objective is to dump bho in 2012. Put your (mostly petty) differences with the candidates aside and land on someone already.

Of course, I say this knowing full well not a single candidate will be allowed to undo very much of what bho and every President since JFK has wrought.

warlocketx said...

No, I'm not 90, although I have it on the authority of most of my acquaintance that I've been an annoying old fart since I was about fourteen or so. But if my arithmetic is reliable (I didn't take my shoes off) I could have driven your mother to the hospital. She probably wouldn't have asked me if anyone else were available, though.

All of which is off the point, which is: the thing that makes Newt Gingrich attractive is that he is ready, willing, and able to bite back when attacked. It's also what makes Ron Paul somewhat tolerable, although he can't or doesn't do as well as Gingrich, which makes it harder to ignore his actual program. If the others adopted the same tactic, and were able to carry it off, Newt would dry up like an axolotl in full sun.

Regards,
Ric

Joe in PNG said...

Pathfinder- the trouble with a statist RINO in charge is that they are able to do a freak lot more damage than a Demo, because they have that "R" after their name. For instance, who was the most effective Liberal president of the last few decades? Nixon- the man who gave us the EPA, the War on Drugs, and almost brought about Socialized Medicine (Teddy said no). Just think what Newt or Mitt could do?

Beaumont said...

Pathfinder& warlocketx share the win. And those of you who say they will sit out the election will not have the option of sitting out the years of hell that will follow a bHo re-election.

jbrock said...

For instance, who was the most effective Liberal president of the last few decades? Nixon

And from where I sit, Gingrich looks like Nixon on Viagra.

Dems in the White House, Republicans in Congress ... At least while the bastards are at each others' throats it means less wear and tear on ours.

The more I see of the 2012 field, the more inclined I am to think that the best succinct formula for electoral reform is "Live steel; free for all; last one standing." Sure, we'd wind up with a thug for a winner, but at least it'd be a thug who had the fortitude to do his own dirty work.

Anonymous said...

I decided I will vote for someone who thinks that the government should have to go through some kind of due process before imprisoning or killing a U.S. citizen.

So far, that means Paul is the only candidate in the race. Obama, Newt, and Mitt all fail by this criteria.

Alath
Carmel IN

Tam said...

Pathfinder,

I don't care about wife-cheating, church-going, or any of that shit.

What you don't seem to understand is that I disagree with Michelle Bachman on as many legislative and political positions as I do Obama. I hate them equally.

People need to get over this idea that "libertarian" just means "super-conservative".

Gnarly Sheen said...

"People need to get over this idea that "libertarian" just means "super-conservative"."

I think it falls more into the "libertarians aren't in my party and are therefore bad" mentality.

"Way to pull it together folks. The objective is to dump bho in 2012. Put your (mostly petty) differences with the candidates aside and land on someone already."

No, here is where you're wrong. The objective is to do our damned best to get elected whichever president will shit on the Constitution the least. BO is terrible, but believe it or not, we can always do worse. Having a dumb, big government Republican in the White House is just as bad as having a dumb, big government Democrat in it.

"What's wrong with bachmann ?"

Well, here's a smattering of what's wrong with Bachman:
"[Same-sex marriage] is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that." Gays getting married is the biggest issue we'll face? Really?

"I'm not pining for nostalgia back in the '50s and '60s, that isn't it. But that sensibility about how we were grounded here is so important. For instance, another American that was born in Waterloo was John Wayne. We were a very patriotic "yay rah rah America" city and nation and I think that's what America's looking for again. Here she mixed up John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy.

"“The problem is, again, a little girl doesn’t get a do-over: once they have that vaccination in their body, once it causes its damage, that little girl doesn’t have a chance to go back.” This morning, Bachmann clarified her remarks on the Today show, saying that the HPV vaccine “can have very dangerous side effects,” including perhaps mental retardation, and that the vaccine “could potentially be a very dangerous drug.”"

So, the problem (or perhaps my problem, I should say) with Bachman is that sometime earlier in her life she ingested a large amount of weapons-grade stupidity.

B.S. philosopher said...

I held my nose and voted for Dubya, because Gore winning would be the apocalypse. Cats sleeping with dogs...

Arguably, Bush governed to the LEFT of his predecessor Clinton. With the exception of the gun issue, I can't really see a whole lot of light between any of the (R) candidates and James Earl Obama on issues that are important to me.

Ian Argent said...

Self-insterested or not, Barr has remained fairly libertarian even after retiring from attempting to get elected (at least from the bits I've heard). He appears to have had a bit of a conversion (or was covering up to get elected by the God Squad).

Will said...

At this point, I'm wondering if we get a few more seats in the Senate, can they block BHO's Supreme Court nominations for 4 years?