Hot on the heels of the big Huck-a-no, Donald Trump has announced that he’s not running for president either. Next up on the I’m-not-running announcement circuit: Palin? (Please?)
Hopefully Mitch Daniels bucks the trend, and soon. (Run, Mitch, run!) If not, with Romney imploding over his sordid past, and all the other candidates not really very credible in the final analysis (a Mormon RINO from Utah, a crazy-eyed crazy person from Minnesota, a washed-up former House speaker whose inability to stay on-message would make Joe Biden blush, a one-note social conservative Catholic who lost his last election by a gazillion points and is the victim of an embarrassing Internet meme, a pizza CEO who nobody’s ever heard of, a libertarian former governor of New Mexico who nobody’s ever heard of, and, yes, Tom Jones Ron Paul), the Generic Republican may win the nomination by forfeit.
By the way, here is Nate Silver’s take on the state of the race in Iowa, post-Huckabee. (This was before Trump’s announcement, though Silver ranked him last in the “third tier” anyway.) The scariest line in the piece: “Iowa is almost certainly a must-win for Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. … But she is sufficiently skilled politician that a victory there could give her a plausible chance at the nomination.” #PANIC!!!
At least the GOP front runner hasn’t been arrested in France on sexual assault charges, unlike the main opposition party’s candidate in France.
At this point I’d bet that the Tea Party factor results in a candidate who has no hope of winning in the general election.
Ironically, realizing he shouldn’t run for President is the first remotely Presidential thing Trump has done.
After hearing Newt Gingrich’s take on healthcare and Medicare reform this past weekend, a part of me wonders if he’s really angling to be Mitt Romney’s VP candidate.
I try not to pay attention to the primaries this early, but in this case, I’m almost forced to follow this stuff – insofar as just keeping track of who the official candidates are. I’d have been far happier with Newt Gingrich running for president four years ago, but even then I doubted that he was electable; there may be a 24-hour news cycle, but the Newt die was cast pretty forcefully by the MSM more than fifteen years ago. I voted for Mitt Romney last time around, and while I think his approach to reforming healthcare is reasonable, I am absolutely convinced his support for the individual mandate is unsupportable from both a GOP primary and a general election perspective.
That pretty much narrows it down to, steer clear of the crazies, avoid the cultural warriors, and stick to generic Republican. Such a candidate may have a hard time getting through the gauntlet that will be the Tea Party, but the general electorate will probably gravitate to someone whose calm and mainstream persona naturally recasts Obama’s “Yes We Can” effect on voters into “I Wish We Hadn’t”. As with all elections involving a sitting president, this election will be first and foremost about the man in the Oval Office, so there’s little to gain by pushing forward too bold a candidate. More than anything else, the GOP candidate needs to make the electorate feel comfortable that ending the Obama experiment will result in a trustworthy, competent adult running the White House.
I’m a little confused by your take on Mitt. His approach is “reasonable,” but utterly “unsupportable”? Do you mean the latter purely in the electability sense — i.e., it’s substantively “reasonable” for the states to have individual mandates, but in the current political climate, someone who argues for this position cannot beat Obama — or do you mean that his substantive position is “reasonable, except that whole individual mandate thing”?
P.S. Your defense of your “stick to generic Republican” thesis implies that you’re talking about a concept, not a specific person. (“Such a candidate,” “someone,” etc.) But that’s not true. You’re talking about a specific person!
In all seriousness, it sounds like what you’re saying is, barring an unexpected entrant (Christie? Jeb?), the AMLTrojan Primary is down to Pawlenty vs. Daniels (who I regard as less “generic,” but who otherwise meets your criteria, perhaps moreso than T-Paw).
I think you’re right, by the way.
Re: #5, what I meant was that, IMO, it is not politically viable for a Republican candidate to take a position in favor of the individual mandate when that is both the linchpin for the unpopularity of Obamacare and currently under intense constitutional scrutiny in the court system. The WSJ’s post-Romney-speech editorial had him dead to rights by asking:
I agree with the WSJ that Romney’s plan “is sensible and might do so some actual good”, but not only is Romney’s timing off (i.e., he is vocally supporting the very unpopular individual mandate even as it is in danger of being struck down by the Supreme Court), he’s exactly the worst possible person from the GOP’s standpoint to carry that message.
As for #6, yes, I’m well aware — I am probably the Vice President of Recruitment for the Non-Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty Fans Who Have Never Met, Heard, or Read Anything by Tim Pawlenty. I know as little about Pawlenty as I do about Herb Cain, and yet the former feels like a frontrunner to me, and the latter like a fringe candidate that I might bother looking into if he happens to make some hay in Iowa. I can only conclude that, of course, I must be racist.
I am more lukewarm to Mitch Daniels (that’s probably your fault, BTW), and I consider Jeb Bush a great candidate in an alternate universe where his brother wasn’t completing an eight-year run with historic unpopularity after presiding over an economic implosion and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As for Chris Chistie, I think his political star is too new (think: Obama circa 2004?) and he needs to show he can get reelected in a state like New Jersey, which would make him incredibly formidable for 2016 (assuming Obama wins reelection).
I can only conclude that, of course, I must be racist.
LOL! Well of course! You’re a Republican! 😛
I am more lukewarm to Mitch Daniels (that’s probably your fault, BTW)
LOL again. But, hey, don’t mentally brand Daniels a RINO just because I like him. (Brand Huntsman that way!!) I disagree with Daniels about a lot of things. And on a lot of other things, he articulates the conservative side of an argument that sits unresolved in my head, but that I tend to provisionally lean liberal on, in terms of my voting habits, because that’s my natural bias and I’ve yet to be fully convinced of the conservative viewpoint, so a tie goes to the Democrat. (Note that the preceding sentence is one of the more honest self-reflective articulations you’ll ever get from me about my own political biases. POUNCE, ALASDAIR, POUNCE!) I like Daniels not because I necessarily agree with his policy prescriptions, but because he seems adult, competent, non-demagogic, and able to articulate those conservative viewpoints without bogging them down with bullshit. In other words, he’s the type of conservative who might actually (finally, says you) convince me to become more conservative if he sticks around long enough to flesh out his ideas and fully engage my A.D.D.-addled, parenthood-sidetracked attention. He says a lot of things that make me think something like, “That kinda sounds right, but I’m not sure if I agree with it, because it feels wrong to my liberal sensibilities, and because lots of other people who say it are full of shit. But maybe it’s right anyway; tell me more, Mitch.”
I would hesitate to say that I’m mentally branding your man Mitch a RINO, it’s just that I am wired to pick up on circumstantial cues, so the fact that you like Mitch doesn’t mean I refuse to like him, it just means that’s a Yellow Flag and I’m going to do more homework on him before making up my mind. Whereas Pawlenty gets a free pass. If you had said Pawlenty tickles your fancy and not Mitch, more than likely I’d be accepting Mitch with fewer questions and holding off on embracing Pawlenty until doing my own independent deep-dive analysis. 😉
In that case, VOTE PAWLENTY! GENERIC REPUBLICAN 2012!
🙂
Don’t worry, I’m going to have to do my homework either way. This isn’t like my first three presidential elections, where my candidate preference was crystal clear and didn’t require further research.*
* for the record, I voted Romney in 2008 and obviously Dubya in 2004. I am pretty sure I voted for Dubya in 2000, but for some reason I think it’s possible I voted for McCain in 2000. Alas, I’m not sure and might have even voted for *gasp* Alan Keyes. What I do know is I slapped all three of those candidates’ stickers on the underside of my first longboard — which I still own and have in my garage. Still, I’m pretty sure I was against McCain-Feingold and CFR even then, so I probably voted for Dubya in the 2000 primary. I was too young to vote in the 1996 or 1992 elections and certainly wasn’t paying attention to the primaries for those years in any case. I do know that I liked Perot in 1992 (Pie charts, yay! National debt, boo! Balanced budget amendment, yay!) and Bob Dole in 1996 (I was quite lukewarm to Dole, it was more of an anti-Clinton preference, along with having zero confidence in Perot after his start-stop-start performance in 1992)..
I was quite lukewarm to Dole, it was more of an anti-Clinton preference
That’s funny; I really liked Dole, but preferred Clinton out of an anti-Gingrich preference. Of course, I liked Dole partly because the girl I had a crush on at the time (sophomore year in high school) was a huge Dole fan.
Anyway, in terms of the primaries, I voted for Bill Bradley in 2000, John Edwards (*facepalm* *headdesk*) in 2004 (Lieberman had already dropped out, otherwise of course I would have voted for him; my Edwards vote was purely anti-Kerry, or so I tell myself so I can sleep at night about voting for the most psychologically unfit major candidate for POTUS since Richard Nixon), and Barry Soetoro in 2008.
Come to think of it, those votes were cast in California, Connecticut (well – mailed from Arizona to Connecticut), and Tennessee, respectively. 2012 will be my first presidential election in Colorado. (Of many.)
I’m not sure and might have even voted for *gasp* Alan Keyes.
Out of white guilt over your latest racism, no doubt. 😛
I remember the 90s. Bob Dole was totally rocking the high school sophomore chick vote. I think that was part of the reason he lost. But yeah, those Bob Dole rallies, wild times man. I just recently voted for John McCain because of this senior from Junior High. Luckily I went to prison before I could cast my vote though. Good times, good times.
If Palin doesn’t run there won’t be any point in paying attention. Oh okay, Newt will get me to watch. I don’t know how the MSM branded Newt already, the only person who talks about Newt getting blown in his car by his mistress before and/or after the impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton, is Bill Maher. The worst thing the MSM did for Newt is allow him to present his opinions to the American people.
LOL @ Sandy’s first paragraph.
I was a Keyes fan in high school, prior to him actually running for any sort of higher office, which is why I think I might have actually supported him. But I think my Christian Coalition mindset had worn thin enough two years into college that I probably went a different direction (looking back on it, in high school you could say I had a man-crush on Ralph Reed).
Bill Bradley was the first time in my life I ever looked at a candidate and thought, “That man is so not ‘presidential'”. I suppose if I was more astute, I would have recognized that back in 1992 when I was under the spell of Perot. I thought the same about Al Gore, John Edwards, and John Kerry. In fact, Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate I can recall thinking had aura of being “presidential”, but that aura was combined with notable inexperience, disturbingly reflexive left-wing habits of rhetoric, and that annoying messianic ambiance placed on him by the media and his followers.
Politics aside, you thought Candidate Gore was not “presidential,” whereas Candidate Bush was? Ooookay…
I’ll agree, though, that Kerry’s limp-knuckled “reporting for duty” salute was decidedly unpresidential.
I thought Gore was more presidential than Bradley — eight years as VP will do that to a man — but I still felt he fell slightly short. I guess I saw Gore as more … senatorial.
Now y’all have me thinking about who I voted for in various primaries. I can really only remember Obama. I think, *gag*, I may have voted Kerry in 04. In 00, I dunno.
I’ve never been in a primary that matters. In fact, in PA, every presidential primary took place so late that there was only one candidate by that point. So my boring history is that, until 2008, I either voted for every GOP nominee or not at all because the Presidential race was pointless. I was there for other races, usually trying to unseat Arlen Specter whenever he came up. If I had been a PA resident in 2010, I would have switched parties to vote out Specter.
2098, voted for Huckabee. This was done mostly out of protest of McCain. Because by this point, the GOP nomination had been decided.
Every election I have voted in (and I have voted in every election I was eligible to) has been in the People’s Republic of California…..so my efforts are an exercise in futility….
Lets see, McCain in 2000, I can’t remember in 2004 but I think Wesley Clark, and Obama in 2008. Theyy are forgoing a primary and doing caucuses only here in Washington for 2012 so I may attend my first caucus, even though the nominee is pretty much a forgone conclusion on the Dem side. I suppose I could always attend a GOP caucus, but I’d only do that if I intended to vote for that candidate over Obama in the general election, chances are low at this point.
Ditto B. Minich about voting in PA, and I voted pretty much the same way, including against Specter. My first non-PA vote was in CT in 2004. I voted for BHO in VA in 2008, but that was primarily a protest vote against Hillary, which on balance I think I regret.
Brendan:
Just out of curiousity…..is there any conservative you woman you do respect?
Gahrie,
That’s not really a neutral question, and it’s somewhat insulting, in much the same way that it would be insulting if I asked you, “Just out of curiousity…..is there any liberal African-American you do respect?” I’d be accusing you of racism in asking that question, and I’d be wrong to do so. Here, you’re accusing me of sexism, and you’re wrong to do so. I don’t disrespect Palin and Bachmann because they’re women, I disrespect them because they’re not worthy of respect due to their shameless demagoguery, psuedo-intellectualism, shallow anti-elitism, complicated relationship with the truth, etc.
Nevertheless, I will disregard the insult and attempt to answer the question. Conservative women who I respect? Offhand? Condi Rice. Laura Bush. Elizabeth Dole. Megan McArdle. Ann Althouse. Helen Reynolds. Peggy Noonan. Kathleen Parker. And many more, but those are off the top of my head.
I suppose some of those are unacceptable to you for various reasons. (I didn’t even bother with Snowe and Collins.) Give me a list of other well-known conservative women and I’ll tell you whether I respect them or not.
By the way, congrats on engaging in shameless identity politics baiting that would make Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson proud.
As an aside, I think many or most of the women I listed are pro-choice (I don’t know in all cases), and I suspect you may point that out in response. But that’s not why I respect them. As you should know well by now, I have plenty of respect for the pro-life position — indeed my personal position on abortion is very complicated and nuanced and muddied — and furthermore, I have much disrespect for many of the more radical and/or thoughtless articulations of the pro-choice position. Of course, the same goes for radical and/or thoughtless articulations of the pro-life position. I am generally appalled by the lack of respect that folks on both extremes of that complex and morally difficult issue tend to show for one another (largely because they fail to acknowledge that it is, in fact, complex and morally difficult), so I am generally unlikely to fully respect someone on either extreme, at least as it regards that issue. But anyway, I have no problem respecting a conservative woman is who is pro-life, provided she’s not a fire-breathing radical who thinks everyone on the other side is an evil baby-killer, etc.
Well…all I remember seeing is rabid attacks on Sarah Palin and gratuitous attacks on Michelle Bachman.
The first thing I notice about your list of women you do respect is that none of them (except Dole who is too old to be a threat anymore) are politicians, and most would not be labeled conservative by conservatives. One of them, Helen Reynolds (Unless I am having a complete brainfart) I have never heard of. What is her claim to fame?
How about Nikki Haley? Mary Katharine Ham? Dana Loesch?
I am not calling you a sexist. I am merely riffing off the well known fact that conservative women are seen as a threat by the Left, and the Left makes a huge effort to destroy them as soon as they become a threat.
I’d be accusing you of racism in asking that question, and I’d be wrong to do so.
I’m a conservative…I’m long past “tired” and “offended” when called a racist and well into “who gives a shit”.
But anyway, I have no problem respecting a conservative woman is who is pro-life, provided she’s not a fire-breathing radical who thinks everyone on the other side is an evil baby-killer, etc.
How else should they think of them, since according to their beliefs, people who support abortion literally are baby killers?
Let me explicitly state that I did not intend to call Brendan a sexist, I apologize for not being clearer in my intentions with my question.
I was somewhat clumsily attempting to riff off of the much phenomena of the Left’s over-reaction to any conservative woman who gains power or popularity.
I still don’t know who Helen Reynolds is, even after a Google search.
“Well…all I remember seeing is rabid attacks on Sarah Palin and gratuitous attacks on Michelle Bachman.”
Thats because they are worthy of being attacked (not literally), not because they are female or even conservative but because they are stupid and horrible leaders.
Most of us non conservatives don’t have a problem with conservative women, just the horrible ones like Palin, Bachman, or Coulter.
Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Regan, Condy Rice, no problem with them as women, I disagree with many of their positions, but the same is true of men who hold the same positions. I think the right clings to this idea that the left hates conservative women because they are unwilling to admit what horrible choices people like Palin and Bachman have been.
Helen Reynolds is InstaPundit’s wife.
I don’t know a lot about Nikki Haley, but from what little I know, I have no reason not to respect her. She seems to have her head on straight, again based on my limited knowledge. I know essentially nothing about Mary Katharine Ham or Dana Loesch. Oh, but who’s that National Review columnist? Kathryn Jean Lopez. I certainly don’t agree with her a lot, but she seems smart and intellectually honest. I don’t disrespect her.
The bottom line is this. While I appreciate your apology, and have no doubt that you didn’t intend to offend me, your position on this is still offensive on its face — not as a matter of unclear phrasing, but inherently offensive. You are positing that the most logical (or only) explanation for liberal dislike and disrespect for Bachmann and Palin is their gender, and some alleged feeling of being “threatened” by their gender — “the Left’s over-reaction to any conservative woman who gains power or popularity” — and then sweeping me in with that alleged phenomenon, on the basis that I don’t like these two particular women and you “can’t recall” me praising any conservative women. (Never mind my numerous posts over the years praising Peggy Noonan, for instance.) And so you challenge me to disprove that I fit into this alleged sexist paradigm — you can claim it isn’t about sexism, but that’s false; to the extent the paradigm exists, IT IS SEXIST by definition — by demonstrating that that I do respect some conservative women. This is CLASSIC identity politics baiting. “Prove you’re not a racist! Prove you’re not a sexist!” It’s complete b.s. You have no basis to ask the question in the first place, because the mere fact that I dislike and disrespect two particular conservative women who are widely disliked and disrespected by many people, including many women, simply is not prima facie evidence of a lack of respect for conservative women generally. The fact that YOU think that Palin or Bachmann are the victims of some vast left-wing conspiracy, doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of other people who believe that they are legitimately worthy of scorn and disrespect on their merits, regardless of gender. In other words, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you aren’t entitled to project it onto me. I have my own reasons for strongly disliking Palin and Bachmann as national political figures, they’re easy to articulate, I’ve articulated them repeatedly, they have nothing whatsoever to do with gender, and you have no basis to believe or suspect otherwise. Just as I accept at face value, without reservation, that your reasons for strongly disliking Obama have nothing to do with his skin color, you should accept at face value, without reservation, that my reasons for strongly disliking Palin and Bachmann have nothing to do with their genitalia.
Again, I have no doubt that you had no subjective intention of offending me or accusing me of being a sexist, and I’m not personally affronted by your question. Rather, I object as a matter of principle, because objectively, you asked an offensive question. I wish you could understand this, and as a conservative who has constantly been falsely accused of racism throughout your life, you really should be able to understand it. I make a point of NOT engaging in the sort of race-baiting that you’ve often been wrongly subjected to, and of criticizing liberals who do it, and here you’re engaging in precisely those same sorts of tactics — Al Sharpton type tactics — without even realizing you’re doing it. That’s unfortunate.
Helen Reynolds is InstaPundit’s wife.
I have never seen her referred to that way. I have always known her as Dr. Helen Smith.
If Nate Silver’s take on Bachman’s chances are news worthy, surely a discussion of the fact that 20% of the latest bunch of Obamacare waivers were awarded to upscale spas, restaurants and hotels in Pelosi’s district is worth a post, or at least a throwaway line.
But guess what the chances of finding that story on this blog are?
How about a discussion of the fact that Jane Harmon cost the state of California millions of dollars to hold a special election for her seat because she ran for re-election only to immediately resign?
My basic point is that both of these stories would have been covered her if there was an “R” after their names instead of a “D”.
P.S. Just to clarify one thing… it not a “the well known fact that conservative women are seen as a threat by the Left, and the Left makes a huge effort to destroy them as soon as they become a threat.” That is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. But it is not a “well known fact.”
Do you want to know my opinion? I believe Palin and Bachmann (especially Palin) are playing you like a fiddle. Palin has made a career out of playing the victim card, shamelessly adopting the Left’s well-honed identity politics baiting tactics to deflect all legitimate criticisms and paint them as symptoms of sexism, or a concerted ideological campaign against conservative women, or whatever you want to call it. You claim not to be a Palin “fan,” but you’ve completely bought into her storyline on this. I am baffled and dismayed that so many otherwise intelligent folks on the Right, who have for so long rightly argued against precisely this sort of pseudo-argument, have so easily fallen pray to the siren song of race- and gender-baiting by a self-appointed “victim” like Palin, who is really just Al Sharpton in a dress as far as this issue goes.
I think the right clings to this idea that the left hates conservative women because they are unwilling to admit what horrible choices people like Palin and Bachman have been.
Every choice of every Republican has been horrible according to the MSM and the Left.
Name one Republican or Conservative that has been fawned over by the MSM the way JFK and Obama were.
Every, every major Republican political figure of the last 60 years has been portrayed as either stupid, or old and out of touch.
Oops, I guess you’re right about Dr. Helen’s surname. My mistake.
The rest of your comment is a non-sequitur. If your criticism is that my blog doesn’t cover certain topics as much as other topics, that’s a completely different point than your original accusation that, because I don’t like Bachmann and Palin, I presumptively disrespect all conservative women. I’m not going to get into a pissing content about which stories I choose to blog about in my limited free time, or point out the various posts that don’t fit into your paradigm. (Well, okay, I’ll point out one: the lengthy P.S. on this post.) I’m not interested in having that discussion, and it’s well-established that you think I’m biased in my story selection, so whatever. I just wish you could acknowledge that it’s wrong to assume that anyone who dislikes Bachmann and Palin must therefore have a problem with conservative women generally, just as it’s wrong to assume that someone who dislikes Obama must therefore have a problem with blacks (or black liberals) generally.
Every, every major Republican political figure of the last 60 years has been portrayed as either stupid, or old and out of touch.
If this is true, then what does gender have to do with it? This argument is self-defeating. Is it conservative women who get the shaft, or just conservatives, period? And anyway, you’re changing the subject again. We weren’t talking about media bias. We were talking about your wrong-headed views about alleged gender bias (mine, and the Left’s generally). vis a vis conservative women, as “proven” by attitudes toward Palin and Bachmann.
One last thought, and then I’m going to bed. Another way of thinking about this: if Mitch Daniels were an attractive woman, and Sarah Palin were a short, balding man, I’d feel precisely the same way about their respective stances. What I like about Daniels is his substance — not that I agree with every position by any means, but his approach is serious and intellectual honest and “adult” and thought-provoking and non-demagogic. Palin is….exactly the opposite of all that, basically. Same with Bachmann. I don’t care what gender they are; what I object to is the substance. Are you contending that you think I would feel differently about Mitch Daniels if he were a woman?
Are you contending that you think I would feel differently about Mitch Daniels if he were a woman?
I am contending that if Mitch Daniels was a woman, he would be seen as a much more dangerous threat by the MSM and the Left, and he would have been treated much differently than he has as a man. (By the way, the same thing would be true if he was any sort of “minority”.)
Whether this different treatment from the MSM and the Left affected your feelings I have no way of knowing.
Palin wasn’t “attacked” by the media, she opened her mouth and made a fool of herself. The story was that the GOP put forth such a woefully unintelligent and unqualified woman. If she had been articulate and intelligent it wouldn’t have been an issue. Instead she was tripped up by such nasty mean questions from Katie Couric like “what do you read”. Really? That’s being afraid of a conservative woman?
Name one Republican that has been covered as “articulate and intelligent”.
If President Obama had been a Republican, the media would have laughed at his qualifications for office, and played up the “Senator Present” theme. He definitely would not have gotten away with keeping his college records secret.
Name one Republican that has been covered as “articulate and intelligent”.
I already did. Mitch Daniels. And don’t say that’s because he’s “not conservative” (the man just signed a bill defunding Planned Parenthood and banning abortion after 20 weeks) or “not a threat” (he’s presently considered one of 3 or 4 leading contenders for the GOP presidential nomination).
Whether this different treatment from the MSM and the Left affected your feelings I have no way of knowing.
But you have your suspicions. And, look, I’m not going to argue that I’m somehow immune to media filter effects. Nobody is. But I’m a fairly sophisticated consumer of news. I don’t just watch the Nightly News and accept everything Brian Williams or Katie Couric says as gospel. I read news critically, and try to get a variety of perspectives on important issues. Do I always succeed? Of course not. But we’re talking about Palin and Bachmann, and there is no media filter necessary to demonstrate their manifest unfitness for office and unworthiness for political respect. For crissakes, gahrie, Bachmann claimed on CNN that President Obama’s trip to India was costing $200 million a day, as he traveled with an entourage of 2,000. This claim wasn’t just false — it was the sort of laughably unbelievable nonsense that one expects to get in a chain e-mail from that idiot relative (we all have one) who believes everything she reads on the Internet. It’s the sort of thing you read and then go to snopes.com, already 100% certain that it’s false, just needing the link to send to your relative to demonstrate what everyone with a shred of common sense automatically knows: it’s untrue, it can’t be true, it’s completely absurd. Michele Bachmann repeated this nonsense on national TV without fact-checking it. She also claimed, falsely, that Obama and Geitner were promoting a single world currency, based on a report that manifestly said nothing of the sort. And there are countless other examples. She has repeatedly demonstrated that she will say anything, no matter how outrageous or manifestly untrue, if it will cause a right-wing frenzy. She routinely accuses her political opponents of being “anti-American.” She is a deeply irresponsible, reckless person, the sort of individual who should wield no power whatsoever — and who all sane, sensible conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers should distance themselves from to the maximum extent possible. She’s nuts. She represents the very worst of the fringiest fringe of the conservative movement. I don’t need the MSM to tell me that. It’s manifest from the words that come out of her mouth. Likewise, Palin’s constant stream of lies, demagoguery and sheer nonsense is well documented, and has been repeatedly cited here. Again I don’t need the media to tell me she’s totally unfit to be local fire commissioner, let alone vice president or president; I can see that for myself. Nor did she need the media to discredit her; just the opposite. She discredits herself, then rehabilitates herself by blaming the media. By using the MSM as the foil, she has managed to convince gullible conservatives like yourself that she’s a “victim” of something other than her own manifest flaws. This is all perfectly apparent without reference to some grand left-wing conspiracy to bring down conservative women. Your inability to recognize these facts is a flaw in your worldview, not mine. Your selective memory of the treatment various conservatives get — from the media and from me — is but a symptom of your overall near-religious adherence to the notion that everything can be explained as a result of MSM bias. It can’t be that certain specific conservatives are widely scorned because they deserve it; no, it must be an MSM conspiracy. Well, you keep on believing that, and I’ll continue living in actual reality.
Here’s my prediction..
If Mitch Daniels enters the presidential race, he will be attacked as being either stupid or out of touch. His plan will be attacked as targeting the poor and minorities.
Let’s check back in six months….
Well, that prediction is guaranteed to come true, because of the vague “will be attacked.” Of course he’ll be attacked, by someone, on those fronts, and many others. To be meaningful, your prediction would need to say:
If Mitch Daniels enters the presidential race, the prevailing conventional wisdom in the MSM will be that he is either stupid or out of touch, and that his plan targets the poor and minorities.
Even that is hard to prove or disprove, since you and I may have differing views on what constitutes “the prevailing conventional wisdom in the MSM,” but it’s at least closer to a true prediction than what you originally said.
I would predict that the primary rap on Daniels will be that he’s “not presidential” because he’s too “wonky” (and “short” and “bald”) and insufficiently “charismatic.” I certainly don’t think he’ll be portrayed as “stupid.” His policy positions will certainly get their share of criticism for being “out of touch” and “targeting the poor and minorities” (because, for instance, he supports the Ryan plan), but I don’t see that as becoming a core aspect of the overall CW portrait of his character. (Romney, on the other hand…….)
As an aside, would you deny that the prevailing conventional wisdom in the MSM about was that: John Kerry was an out-of-touch, effete, self-regarding flip-flopper; Al Gore was a stiff, pompous fibber who constantly sighed and interrupted (whereas Bush, while stupid, was at least more likeable); Bill Clinton was a sleazy, lying womanizer (okay, that one’s easy); and Michael Dukakis was an out-of-touch elitist (as perfectly encapsulated by his “tank” moment)?
The media comes up with a prevailing caricature of nearly every candidate. Sometimes, it has substantial grains of truth; other times, less so. But you can’t seriously believe this is only done to Republicans.
(Obama was arguably a partial exception to the above rule, which is why I didn’t list him above, because I know you wouldn’t agree if I did. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Obama was given kid-gloves treatment by the MSM, and wasn’t really subjected to the usual CW caricature-creation process. I’m not sure that’s entirely true, but again, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept it. Even so, that doesn’t prove that all Democrats are somehow immune.)
P.S. For that matter, if we’re talking about how MSM caricatures impact politics, Howard Dean’s presidential ambitions were largely derailed by a media frenzy of piling on about his “scream,” which was seen as proof positive that the man is unhinged. That’s the sort of thing that, according to you, only happens to Republicans (e.g., Quayle’s “potatoe” incident = he’s dumb; Bush I’s grocery-store scanning gaffe = he’s out of touch). But Dean is a classic example of the same thing happening to a progressive darling.
Likewise, did “macaca” doom George Allen’s candidacy? Sure. And Joe Biden’s “7-Eleven” gaffe doomed his presidential ambitions (such as they were). It certainly got a lot of coverage, dampened only by Obama’s decision to accept his apology and say it was no big deal.
Furthermore, I’d say there’s a strong case to be made that the MSM obsession with trivialities regarding Gore’s character (sighing, interrupting, etc.) cost him the 2000 election. Bush was treated more as an amiable dunce than anything else, and if there’s one thing Americans hate more than a slightly dumb but likeable frat boy (which is how Bush was portrayed in the 2000 election; 2004 is a different story), it’s the insufferable prig who raises his hand trying to answer every question in class. I would submit that the “My Kid Beat Up Your Honor Student” vote very likely netted Bush at least 538 votes in Florida, and thus won him the presidency.
Or, if we go back further, how about the media treating Jerry Brown’s 1992 candidacy as unserious because he was “Governor Moonbeam”? Or, even further, how about the impact a single episode of crying had on Muskie in 1972? These sorts of things happen all the time, and again, often they’re at least partially justified (Brown is a bit out there; Dean’s scream was genuinely disconcerting; Gore is a bit of a pompous ass). But that’s true on the Right as well. (Bush did make a lot of dumb statements and often seemed out of his depth; McCain did behave in a manner that supported the caricature that he was recklessly impulsive.) Again, these caricatures are often partially unfair but also often contain grains of truth. We can argue about specific examples until we’re blue in the face, but what can’t seriously be argued is that this only happens to Republicans.
My point isn’t that it happens to only Republicans, butt that it happens to all Republicans that are seen as a threat.
Take Sen. McCain. The media loved him while he was a maverick senator who often opposed other Republicans.. But once he became a serious contender for president the media turned on him.
An example that seems to prove both our cases is Sec. Clinton. She was once a media and leftwing favorite, until she threatened the annoitment of Pres. Obama. then they savaged her.
An alternative view would be that Sen. McCain fundamentally changed his positions when he became as serious contender for president, because such was necessary in order to win the nomination, and in so doing, revealed himself to be a hypocrite. And then, in picking Sarah Palin as VP, he violated every principle he’d ever supposedly espoused. In other words, the media’s view of McCain isn’t what changed; McCain is what changed.
Also, the notion that Hillary Clinton, pre-2008, was some sort of universal media darling on an Obama-like MSM honeymoon, not subject to any conventional-wisdom caricature, is so utterly laughable that it pretty much defeats your entire argument, or at least your credibility in advancing it. Hillary Clinton, circa 1993-the mid-2000s, was one of the most caricatured figures in American politics! She was The Bitch, The Pantsuit, the power-hungry, power-mad, anything-to-advance-her-career Wife Of Convenience who saw the Senate and then the presidency as her birthright. Of course there were plenty of folks on the Left and in the MSM who liked her (though she was never an uncomplicated, straightforward “leftwing favorite” — the whole reason Obama’s campaign gained steam in the first place is because progressives wanted somebody other than Hillary), but the overall conventional-wisdom view of her was by no means universally positive.
Meanwhile, I notice you haven’t disagreed with my examples showing that Democratic presidential candidates are also almost universally subject to caricature, with the possible exception of Obama, who I’m excepting for the sake of argument. Fundamentally, if you can’t rebut that point, you can’t win this argument. If 100% of national Republican candidates, and 90% of national Democratic candidates, are subject to media caricature, that points to an entirely different cause for this phenomenon than the left-wing conspiracy you’re positing.