The Boston Globe, which endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008 with "great enthusiasm", has come out for Jon Huntsman. Whee! That might be enough to sway any Republicans worried that Romney is insufficiently moderate and has secretly become the conservative he is pretending to be.
Well. It's reassuring that Huntsman's political vision is not totally flawed - his strategy of courting the liberal media by bashing the right is at least connecting him with his target audience.
--And so far it appears to me the Tea Partyers are a lot more loyal to GOP "establishment" types when they lose the primary than the GOPers are when the shoe's on the other foot.--
Exactly. And that's exactly the experience of the Christian right in the Republican party.
They want their votes and enthusiasm and then expect them to shut up but stay loyal.By and large they do, but their enthusiasm is greatly blunted by the repeated discouragement.
The same will happen with the Tea Party if the Republicans do the same to them.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 08, 2012 at 02:39 PM
Yes JMH, Lisa Murkowski is the stellar example of the entitlement mentality of establishment Republicans. How dare these teabagger upstarts challenge them in a primary and win!
And JMH also brings up the fact that the Tea Party has pulled the party to the right. Many a previous spendthrift/earmarker in the GOP caucus has been getting fiscal religion as his/her 2012 primary approaches. That is entirely due to 2010 and Tea Party influence on the process, and I expect it righteously to continue through November.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 08, 2012 at 02:41 PM
--Captain Hate:
I'm suddenly feeling less besieged!--
You wouldn't have felt so besieged if it wasn't for all those skeletons you were hiding in your closet when clarice threw your shoe into the ring.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 08, 2012 at 02:43 PM
The Tea Party was a gift to the Republicans and if they squander it, which at times they seem willing to do, they need a Plan B that I've seen no evidence of. Strangely enough, I think Michael Steele understood that although it got obscured by his numerous unforced gaffes. I'm pretty sure Rience Priebus is on-board with it also.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 08, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Many a previous spendthrift/earmarker in the GOP caucus has been getting fiscal religion as his/her 2012 primary approaches.
Amen, Porchlight.
Posted by: centralcal | January 08, 2012 at 02:47 PM
LOL, Ignatz. With my closet, I couldn't even run for dog catcher....
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 03:10 PM
How about not alienating with Lisa Murkowski by interfering with her campaign?
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 09:20 AM
Winning a primary is "interfering"?
You don't really believe in representative democracy do you?
Posted by: mockmook | January 08, 2012 at 03:12 PM
I've been in JMH's closet. It is a spectacular closet.
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 03:13 PM
Cecil:
"And so far it appears to me the Tea Partyers are a lot more loyal to GOP "establishment" types when they lose the primary than the GOPers are when the shoe's on the other foot."
Absolutely. In Christine O'Donnell's defense, no one should underestimate how badly Mike Castle, himself, hurt her chances. In fact, he may be as responsible for her loss as anyone else. After complaining about her running a nasty campaign, he didn't just refuse to endorse her. His people went on making ex post facto headlines like this:
While I continue to think that Castle, or a more formidable alternative, would have won, I think O'Donnell would have made a far better showing, including a possible win, if she hadn't been undercut by a man with a considerable constituency of potential supporters.Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 03:54 PM
hit:
Fortunately, you're not a skeleton yet. Unless the press starts speculating about the connection between a beer-drinking stalker and my Imelda Marcos collection of shoes.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Great comments JMH.
And not just this one, which is absolutely correct:
--And so far it appears to me the Tea Partyers are a lot more loyal to GOP "establishment" types when they lose the primary than the GOPers are when the shoe's on the other foot.--
Lisa M did enormous damage to Conservative's up here, and I wouldn't walk across the street to poop on her.
Posted by: daddy | January 08, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Thanks, daddy!
The credit for the comment on loyalty goes to Cecil. I just agreed with him completely. Ditto for his comment on coalition politics.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 04:48 PM
daddy:
"I wouldn't walk across the street...."
Even Carmen Tisch wouldn't bother when she's only worth $1.7 million. So far.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 04:55 PM
JM Hanes @ 1:51
Porchlight @ 2:41
mocknook @ 3;12
1.) Obviously, you, collectively, are completely unaware of the intracasies of what occured in Alaska, and yet you are very opinionated. Go figure. I've been trying to think of a tactful way to say this, but I can't. So I'll be blunt. The three of you don't know wtf you're talking about. Really.
2.) Obviously, also, you, collectively, don't know squat about Karl Rove's credentials and his history either, and you really don't know what occurred in Delaware, and yet you're very opinionated about those issues, too. Go figure.
3.) Yeah, 12:07, that was pretty much just the rationale that I expected. But with your state of mind, I'm sure that it makes perfect sense to you. (It's genetic, you know.) LOL!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Uncle!
We give!
Stop torturing us like that.
Posted by: Commas | January 08, 2012 at 06:23 PM
Again ignatz, when I'm talking about oranges,
you want to talk about apples. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 06:30 PM
No insults from Anne...
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 08, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Insults? No. Exasperation? Yes
BTW, How many sock puppets do you use?
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 06:50 PM
None.
So only in exasperation you suggest one of the most well versed posters work on his reading comprehension?
Sounds like a cop out.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 08, 2012 at 06:58 PM
If you depend on the Daily News, the north bound end of the McClatchy octopus, yo u wouldn't know the story, how Fagan one of the establishment stalwarts finally came around to realizing how truly useless Murkowski would be,
Posted by: narciso | January 08, 2012 at 07:08 PM
Anne,
I don't think the word insult means what you think it means.
Or, maybe you just like to be rude.
Whatever.
Posted by: Susanne | January 08, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Anne:
There's no evidence that you, individually, know squat about Alaska. You clearly weren't here for daddy's real time blow by blow of both media coverage and campaign developments there, from start to finish.
There's zero evidence that you, individually, know any more about Rove's credentials than anybody else here, or that I, for example, have defended his role in the last election ad infinitum. You do know that Rove, himself, kept Sharon Angle's campaign afloat, right? She's not the only newly inspired candidate who benefitted from his resources, of course.
I see no comment at 12:07, but your ostensible response is downright silly, in any case. You're in no position to take anyone to task for opinionated assertions, and the more exclamation points you add to your LOLs the less convincing your putative amusement becomes.
All of which is too bad, because it would be nice to have someone on board who is willing to make a thoughtful, forthright case for establishment Republican positions and defend them on substance instead of just tossing out ad hominems when folks take the time to reply.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 08:12 PM
--Again ignatz, when I'm talking about oranges,
you want to talk about apples. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.--
You said O'Donnell was a disgrace so I attempted to determine if any RINOS who repeatedly aid or assist Dems and in one case fled the Republican party would be considered disgraces by you. I wasn't comparing apples to oranges. I was attempting to find out if apples even exist in your universe.
As you have done repeatedly, you refused to answer or respond.
You never corrected your mischaracterization of Mossad's view of a nuclear Iran and you never demonstrated what was supposedly specious about the first comment of mine you criticized.
Considering the number of drive-bys you've committed on this thread you might consider changing your part affiliation to Dem.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 08, 2012 at 08:15 PM
How many sock puppets do you use?
They're not sock puppets,Anne. They're automated trollatron bots.
Learn the difference and you'll unlock the key to all understanding.
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Ignatz, you aren't even rational.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 08:45 PM
So, I'm going to regret asking this question, Anne, how to do you feel about Palin, on balance?
Posted by: narciso | January 08, 2012 at 08:48 PM
--Ignatz, you aren't even rational.--
That's what my brother tells me all the time.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 08, 2012 at 08:54 PM
narcisco @ 8:48
I'm ambivalent.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Anne:
Responding to your comment in the Debate thread.
I did not claim that Rubio was a wholly owned Tea Party candidate, even though he was frequently characterized that way in the press. If you track the numbers, as I suggested, you'll see that he had almost no money, almost no name recognition, and that Charlie Crist was still outpolling him in a big way, when Tea Party support started rolling in, as far back as the primaries. He certainly went on to win in his own right, but all that time he spent on the Tea Party circuit gave him a pivotal boost at a pivotal moment. Even if you deny that the Tea Parties played any roll at all in his election, "your man" Rubio sure doesn't share your view of the movement. Quite the contrary!
Perhaps the fact that you have a problem remembering anything else from my comment is emblematic.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 09:08 PM
JM @ 9:08
LOL. In a word, bullsh*t. Too funny.
You ditz. I was in Marco's campaign.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Once again, great work, Anne. I'm sure "Marco" (since you're clearly on a first name basis - how impressive) really appreciates your attempts to alienate his supporters (I sent money to his campaign and so did many others here).
Or are you trying to tell us that Marco's lip service to the Tea Party is just that - lip service?
Again, an interesting way to go about trying to win elections.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 08, 2012 at 09:44 PM
You must have never been on Marco's campaign bus. Here he is thanking the Tea Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQHG6to_IIY
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 08, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Anne:
"I was in Marco's campaign."
I'd be very interested in knowing when you joined his campaign and what your job was.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 09:51 PM
mockmook:
Where in that did he say that Washington should right our moral ship?
Something I have noticed in following politics is that when a candidate discusses a problem, he very often means to suggest that upon election he will be able to solve the problem. You may be interested to learn that the office which Santorum hopes to win is located in Washington.
Posted by: bgates | January 08, 2012 at 09:53 PM
POrchlight @ 9:44
Threadkiller @ 9.45
LOL - Some would say
that you people have
dug yourselves into
a deep enough hole
already, and that you
ought to stop digging.
But not me. I wouldn't
say that. No sirree.
You people are too
sharp for me. You
have worn me out. :)
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 10:03 PM
JM @ 9:51
Um that is classified information. If
I told you, I would have to kill you.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Marco! You ditz!
Gosh. You'd almost think he read my post.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Something I have noticed in following politics is that when a candidate discusses a problem, he very often means to suggest that upon election he will be able to solve the problem. You may be interested to learn that the office which Santorum hopes to win is located in Washington.
Posted by: bgates | January 08, 2012 at 09:53 PM
Then you should be able to name one specific "morality" problem Santorum has suggested should be solved by Washington (beyond the definition of marriage).
Posted by: mockmook | January 08, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Heh. Call JMH a ditz while claiming some type of service to Rubio's campaign. JMH inquires about your service there -- and you decide to bug out?
Brave.
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 10:14 PM
"I could say a lot more but Marco (he insists I call him Marco) would not want me to."
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 10:15 PM
hit:
Well, at least I know how I would classify it now.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 10:21 PM
JM @ 10:13
That proves nothing .., ditzy.
Well ..., except that you can
come up with ditzy rationales
which reinforce your delusions.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 10:24 PM
In Anne's words: LOL. Anyone else notice that she provides not one ounce of evidence for all those holier than thou pronouncements?
"Iran is not a threat. LOL"
"it's all the tea party's fault, LOL"
"lisa murkoski is a great senator, LOL"
To which I say LOLOLOL
Posted by: Jane | January 08, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Time for a new entry into the Narcisolator.
Posted by: DrJ | January 08, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Bens-Anne? Is this part of the experiment?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 08, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Pssst, you need more sock puppet reinforcements.
Posted by: Anne | January 08, 2012 at 10:35 PM
you need more sock puppet reinforcements.
How many people do you think are posting in responses to you?
Marco thinks everyone here is his or her own individual.
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 10:38 PM
"Psst, you need more sock puppet reinforcements"
And you need to restock that barrel with fish.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Speaking of experiments, I'm only about 2 refinements away from turning out the world's best short ribs.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Next weekend?
Posted by: hit and run | January 08, 2012 at 10:47 PM
On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog.
Or a putative Rubio worker. Huh.
Posted by: DrJ | January 08, 2012 at 10:52 PM
one specific "morality" problem Santorum has suggested should be solved by Washington (beyond the one that I'll concede right away)
Well, this little fracas started after JMH said that Santorum "clearly seems to believe that it is up to Washington to right our moral ship", when actually Santorum wants people to know that "he believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding", and so he wants to be President to "rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values".
Since you asked for a specific moral issue, I'll have to refer to the link to Santorum's website and name abortion, "strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood", and federal funding for abstinence education.
Posted by: bgates | January 08, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Moral ship, moral enterprise.
Potato, potato.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 08, 2012 at 11:27 PM
You're on a roll, today, JM,
Posted by: narciso | January 08, 2012 at 11:40 PM
I'll be cleaning out the skeletons in my closet, hit. But you could bring a shovel!
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 09, 2012 at 12:08 AM
JM @ 10:43
Whoa ..., Touche. Kudos. LOL
See, folks? If they are conscientious, a ditz
can come up with a zinger, too ... once a year.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Fuck off Anne.
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 11:27 AM
--Since you asked for a specific moral issue, I'll have to refer to the link to Santorum's website and name abortion, "strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood", and federal funding for abstinence education.--
One problem Federalists (and I'm not saying Santorum is one) or anyone who simply wants to return to Constitutional governance have is that the Federal government has become so enmeshed in areas that are none of its business that it's impossible to not "solve" some of these issues outside of DC.
How does one solve the Federalized problem of abortion without involving Washington?
How does one "solve" the problems with the family and fatherhood that have been wrought by Federal welfare programs, which are still massive despite welfare reform, without involving Washington?
Even sex education has largely become Federally funded and promoted.
If Santorum's goal is stronger Washington involvement in those things then he's on the wrong track.
But is he talking about strengthening the Federal role in those issues, weakening it or at least attempting to undo some of the damage even if unwinding Washington's role is not possible presently?
Anybody done enough research to give a well versed answer?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2012 at 11:37 AM
--JMH inquires about your service there -- and you decide to bug out?
Brave.--
Hit you ditzy broad,
I'd have to say that Anne "bugged out" quite some time ago and that these things are rarely what one "decides".
If she did work on Rubio's campaign why do I suspect she was being paid by Crist to do so?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Jane @ 10:24
I'm a happy person, and I laugh a lot.
If that's a problem for you, maybe you
need to get a life, ya think? Sheesh!!!
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Ah, yes, the old gambit - insult people and then when they take issue, tell them to lighten up. Original.
Anne, hard to believe you were on Rubio's campaign since you write exactly like a teenager.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 09, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Ignatz @ 8:54
Self-deprecating humor. I like that.
Have we made a breakthrough here? LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 12:11 PM
POrchlight @ 12:04
Context and relevancy. Context and relevancy.
Try to work on them, will you? You're so lame.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Try to work on them, will you? You're so lame.
Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 09, 2012 at 12:26 PM
POrchlight @ 12:26
(yawn)
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 12:27 PM
--Ignatz @ 8:54
Self-deprecating humor. I like that.
Have we made a breakthrough here? LOL--
Maybe you're new here.
My brother is a personality disordered nut case.
Much of what you say sounds like what he says.
I'll leave it to you to put it together.
--Context and relevancy. Context and relevancy. Try to work on them, will you?--
Hmm, maybe TK was right. That sounds like the Bens.
--You're so lame.--
But then maybe Porch was, cause that sounds like the Bens' ditzy teenage stepchild.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2012 at 12:32 PM
"Have we made a breakthrough here? LOL"
Well ..., maybe not. LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | January 09, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Who is that "Bens" of whom you speak
so admiringly, enviously and jealously?
Just curious.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 12:51 PM
The experiment continues, TK.
Very insightful.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 09, 2012 at 01:05 PM
12:51
Pssst, Ignatz is wondering ....,
Hmmm, was that a trick question?
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 01:06 PM
WE have arrived at the "now I'm just looking for attention" phase of her brief tenure here. Oh how predictable. (Funny she appears to be on west coast time)
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 01:10 PM
Little morphin' Anne, did the Rubio campaign pass feathers too?
The Bens?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2012 at 01:16 PM
Jane @ 1:10
Are you the same Jane that goes by the name "Unknown Jane" on another blog?
Hmmmm?
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 01:18 PM
What blog?
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 01:20 PM
TK,
Interesting use of ellipses and comma. Seems like I have seen that before.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 09, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Porchlight @ 1:20
Yeah, I posted here yesterday,
you ditz. Isn't she observant?
Can't make this stuff up, folks. LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 01:25 PM
It comes down to Bungduster, the Bens, or a generic NPC. Since "identity" has not been used I do not suspect Bung.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2012 at 01:27 PM
It actually comes down to b-o-r-i-n-g.
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 01:32 PM
Jane is right. Bye Bens.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 09, 2012 at 01:35 PM
Jane @ 1:32
But, but, but how can that be? The longest
threads here have my savvy comments on them.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 01:39 PM
@ 1:16
Did anyone ever tell you that you are [very] strange?
Wait, don't tell me, this is a family blog,
right? You're all brothers and sisters and brothers are married to their sisters and to their mothers, right. That explains it.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 01:56 PM
Anne,
WEll gosh darn, you just gave yourself away.
You haven't been around long enough to know if a thread is long.
Now got get a feather and stick it up your ass.
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Jane just went to try to get a life,
but she will be back. Count on it.
Don't you miss her already? LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 02:07 PM
I live here Anne. You are just visiting to shit on the living room rug.
Posted by: Jane | January 09, 2012 at 02:14 PM
See? She is back already. I told ya.
Guess she didn't have any luck. Can't
imagine why, can you? She's so classy.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 02:15 PM
I hate being schizophrenic.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 02:48 PM
and so do I. LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Jane @ 2:14
You have carpeting in your trailer?
Whoa, I'm impressed.
Jane has wall-to-wall, in-door, out-door carpeting in her trailer, folks. Classy, huh?
It's a pretty mosaic, too, pieced together from scraps which she found in the landfill behind her trailer while dumpster-diving for her new, spring wardrobe. Our roly poly little Jane; she's a Tea Partier, you know.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 07:00 PM
@ 2:48 & 2:49
Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. But it was funny. Betcha Janet
(or Jane) wishes that she had said that.
Posted by: Anne | January 09, 2012 at 07:20 PM
"My brother is a personality disordered nut case." - Ignatz @ 12:32 pm 01/09/12
After reading your comments, any rational and reasonably astute person would want to hear your brother's side of the story.
Personally, I suspect that that was what you were screaming when the men in white coats threw a net over you and took you to the padded cell from where you now post your loopy comments.
In any case, to have sneakily made disparaging remarks about your own brother behind his back, and to have washed out your family's dirty laundry in public here in this forum was in bad taste, and, in fact, it would have been inappropriate for [any] venue.
I'm sure that you have been told this before, but you've got a big mouth and you talk to much and you don't know when to shut up. You're clueless, too, but very opinionated. Go figure. BTW, I meant that in the nicest way. No hard feelings? LOL
Posted by: Anne | January 10, 2012 at 09:20 AM
I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies to Dana.
Obviously Anne is my psychopathic brother.
Hey, bro.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 10, 2012 at 03:34 PM
I cannot tell a lie. I kinda have a crush.
Posted by: hit and run | January 10, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Ignatz @ 3:34
Um, what is obvious is that
you are stupid white trash.
(You don't know any better.)
Posted by: Anne | January 10, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Oh, now I remember Iggy. Wasn't Iggy
the toothless goober in Deliverance?
Who would be surprised to learn that
Iggy's brother is also Iggy's husband?
Posted by: Anne | January 10, 2012 at 08:53 PM
My apologies to my psychopathic brother then.
Sylvia, perhaps?
Is that what your post means Hit?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 10, 2012 at 08:54 PM
More relevant:
Is Huntsman's win in New Hampshire an anomaly, or what? The only way that I
can account for his 3rd place finish
is that his wife and all three of his
daughters are hotties, and when all
four of them campaigned for him, they
got men to vote with their peckers,
instead of with their brains. Weird.
We haven't seen that phenomenon since
Jackie was JFK's runningmate in 1959.
Some Americans learned [nothing] from
the past three years. I'm incredulous.
In other news, GE's former CEO, Jack
Welch, said that "'Romney Is the Most Qualified Leader I've Ever Seen Run for President". That cinches it. One of
Obama's financial contributors wants
Republicans to support Romney. LOL
BTW, did I mention that Iggy is nuttier
than a squirrel turd?
Posted by: Anne | January 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM