Instant Iowa Analysis

UPDATED BELOW:


I’ve been biting my tongue the past few weeks while being told repeatedly not only by the TeeVee Talking Heads (who do little but spew Conventional Wisdom) but also by most of the independent political bloggers whom I respect, that Newt Gingrich’s campaign to snag the Republican nomination is over and done with.  Looking at the Iowa results, I still can’t see that.

Here’s my fast-n-loose assessment of what went down last night and yet more shameless speculation about "what it all means" going forward:

Canada: The Northernmost State

About a month ago I penned a little rant about "independent voters," arguing as I always do that "independent" is just a functional euphemism for "low-information" (i.e., "bog stupid"). The cause of that rant was a poll asking Mississippi voters for whom they would vote today if they had the choice: Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis? Lincoln was the clear winner among both Democrats and Republicans, but self-identified "Independents" were split evenly at 44% each.

I suggested that this was only further evidence that people who self-identify as "independent" are really just so damned ignorant that they don't even know who either Lincoln or Davis were. In an attempt to bolster my claim that there are Americans alive today who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was, I pointed out that "[t]hese are people who think Canada is the northernmost state."

Well . . . lest anybody think I exaggerate the depth of ignorance that exists in the simple American electorate, let's just take a gander at how the Iowa Republican caucuses are wrapping up. Here is Texas Governor Rick Perry explaining to Iowans why we should be eager to get our hands on Canada's tar sands oil:

"Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don't have to buy from a foreign source," Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a round of enthusiastic applause.

Later, the audience reacted again to Mr. Perry's assertion that buying so much energy from foreign countries is "not good policy, it's not good politics and frankly it's un-American." (emphasis added)

And you thought I was exaggerating last month about how bog stupid Americans can be? What cracks me up about all this is not just that Perry just naturally considers Canada's oil to be part of the United States' domestic production, but that when he made these ridiculous statements his Republican audience burst into "enthusiastic applause." Apparently, the sheer ridiculousness of claiming Canada's oil as our own escaped them all.

Lord, Lord . . . give me the strength tomorrow night to drink enough to expunge all of 2011 from my head, and to steel me to endure the year to come.

New Rule - Republican Name Clusters

Rick Snyder (Gov. – MI)

Rick Scott (Gov. – FL)

Scott Walker (Gov. – WI)

Scott Brown (Sen. – MA)

Ron Paul (Rep. – TX)

Rand Paul (Sen. – KY)

Paul Ryan (Rep. – WI)

New Rule:  Never, ever, ever vote for any Republican candidate whose name contains either “Rick,” “Scott,” “Paul,” or any combination thereof.

Rick Perry . . .  I'm looking at you.

Rick Santorum . . . you too, buddy.

2012: Who the Hell Are We?

Via John Aravosis over at Americablog I found this press pool report from Sunday:

At his first fundraiser in San Jose, President Obama took aim at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, without naming the Texas governor by name, and was critical of the recent GOP debates.  He said the 2012 election will be “a contest of values.”

“Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans but are puzzled by what’s happened to that party . . . .  I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately?  You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change,” he said to applause.  “It’s true.  You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.

“That not reflective of who we are,” Mr. Obama said.  “This is a choice about the fundamental direction of our country.  2008 was an important [elec]tion.  2012 is a more important election.”

Yes, please . . . more of this.

Rick Perry's Debate Debut: Handicapping the Candidates

I watched the debate via Internet, but I assume the sound quality was the same for those watching on the TeeVee – boy!  did that suck!  The amount of reverb present whenever anyone was talking gave me a headache and sometimes made it next to impossible to figure out what was being said.  I don’t know if that was a problem with the audio equipment or somehow resulted from the fact the debate appeared to have been held in an airplane hangar, but it was extremely annoying.  Almost as annoying as the hagiographic video they ran of St. Ronald Reagan and his missus.

As for the GOP base audience, I took notes of the things to which they seemed to react/applaud.  These included:

--Newt Gingrich’s charge that the “liberal media,” acting as the debate’s moderators, were “carrying water for Obama”;

--Michele Bachmann’s claim that the Affordable Care Act constitutes “socialized medicine”;

--Jon Huntsman’s charge that Obama should “get out from behind a teleprompter;”

--Santorum’s announced goal of cutting way back on food stamps and housing assistance; and

--Rick Perry’s assertion that Social Security was “a monstrous lie” that “won’t be there” for our children. 

But by far, what drew the loudest and longest applause was Brian Williams attempt to ask Rick Perry about the record number of people he has executed as Governor of Texas.  The really chilling thing about this applause is that it started before Williams could even finish setting up the question.  He got as far as saying “Governor Perry, you’ve presided over the executions of the largest number of people of any modern governor –” when the audience broke into sustained and spontaneous applause.  They were applauding Perry for killing a lot of people.  If you wanted evidence of the bloodthirsty nature of the GOP base . . . There it is.

Individual assessments of each candidate's performance are below the fold.

The Excruciating Choice: To Hope for a Romney or a Perry Nomination?

Over at No More Mister Nice Blog, Steve M. asks Is Beltway Denial of GOP Insanity the Reason Romney Won't Fight Back? Essentially, Steve points out that a large portion of the media Village can't bring itself to admit that the modern GOP has basically gone insane because it hurts them too much to acknowledge this. (For my money, this is because they're afraid that recognizing the modern GOP's insanity would sound too "partisan" and thus would damage their self-identification as "politically savvy -- yet at the same time politically innocent -- insiders"). He suggests that Mitt Romney actually believes the Villagers when they assert that large swathes of the GOP still consist of reasonable, moderate voters and that those voters are sufficient to prevent Rick Perry from stealing what Romney thinks is his nomination.

Like Steve, I don't believe that -- I think the nomination is going to be decided by the increasingly unhinged teabaggers and their supporters, who are after all the most active and strident group within today's GOP. And so I think Steve is onto something when he suggests that "denial of the GOP's psychopathy harms the one not-quite-crazy Republican still standing in the race." Truthfully, though, I'm not quite sure how I feel about that.

On the one hand, and for strictly short-term political reasons, I think I'd be delighted to see Perry get the nomination over Romney. Were Romney to get the nod, it would only provide further cover for the Villagers to continue denying that the modern Republican Party has gone off the rails. Moreover, I think Romney would have a real chance at winning the general election given how terrible the economy is likely to remain. And that, of course, would be pretty much all that is needed to complete the corporatization of America.

I also believe quite the opposite about Perry. Personality-wise, Perry is pretty much as extreme as they come these days: an unapologetic Bible thumper whose only clearly articulated plan for dealing with the problems that beset our country and his own State of Texas is to pray for Jesus to make it all better, an adolescent who brags about how he named his custom-made boots "Liberty" and "Freedom" and that he carries a laser-sighted pistol with him when he goes jogging, and a snarkish bully captured on video after announcing his presidential bid telling a journalist to "give [Romney] my love" and blowing a kiss toward the camera.

This type of blowhard might play well in Texas and amongst the GOP faithful in general, but they tend to turn off everybody else. Bush may have been just as psychopathic, but at least he had the political acumen to run for president claiming to be "a compassionate conservative." Perry, on the other, seems to revel in hippie-punching and pissing off as many non-(GOP)believers as possible. Which is at once why he is now the Republican front-runner, and why I also think that he would lose the general election to Obama. It is also why a Perry nomination would help to "immanentize the eschaton" of getting the pundits and the bipartisan fetishists (and I'm looking at you, Mr. President) to acknowledge how far off the rails the GOP has driven itself.

On the other hand . . . hoping for a Perry nomination just seems wrong. I tend to think that nobody should be actively hoping that a callous, hot-headed know-nothing might snag the presidential nomination of one of our country's only two national parties. And, hey, I have to acknowledge that I could also just be wrong about Perry's chances of winning the general election. Romney would knowingly and greedily complete the corporatization of America, but Perry would do the same out of simple thick-headedness and a Texas understanding that this is how "bidness" gets done. But Perry would also further institutionalize the worst Christianist, xenophobic and anti-science impulses our nation has to offer. Which would be even worse.

So when it comes to hoping for a particular GOP candidate, that's the choice presented. Gamble I'm right about my assessment of Perry's chances in the general election and root for him to win the Republican nomination, or hedge my position and root for Romney and then hope that Obama beats him in the general election but console myself that - even if Obama loses - at least Rick Perry isn't squatting in the Oval Office.

It's a tough call, and looking over the Republican field all I can say is Thank God (and my state's election laws) that as a registered Democrat there is no possibility that I will be forced to actually vote on this.

Chasing the Consistency Hobgoblin

Everybody gets the quote wrong.

Way back when I was a very young lawyer I attended a Motion Hearing with a Senior Partner, who pointed out in support of his argument that the opposing counsel already agreed with him:  they had in fact adopted exactly the same position for which he was advocating just a few months previously in a different case.  Senior Partner had the legal briefs opposing counsel had filed – with their signatures on those briefs – to prove it.

But now they found it advantageous to argue the opposite position and – incredibly – they won the hearing.

Afterward, talking with opposing counsel while waiting for the elevator, Senior Partner asked them how they could so cynically argue diametrically opposing positions within only a few months’ time.  The other side smiled superciliously and said:  “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  Senior Partner had never heard this expression before, correctly perceived it to be an insult, and railed afterward in the car about how it was just further proof that the other side were a bunch of ethically challenged shysters who didn’t really believe a single goddamned word that came out of their mouths.

Had I been a little older, and thus a little more sure of myself, I might have piped up at the elevators to correct those guys.  What Ralph Waldo Emerson actually said was:  “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

That initial two word qualifier – “a foolish” – makes all the difference.

Thoughts on the Seven Dwarfs Debate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.