and, again, the honor goes to that ol' cooter -- John McCain. enjoy...
Bunk Bros Political Sleep-Over
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
GOP Nomination Headscratcher...
There's a lot of talk about the weakness of the Romney candidacy - he's got the money, the organization, this is his second crack at the nomination, yet he still doesn't have wide support from the GOP voters. Many people are talking about the "Romney ceiling" of 25%, and the fact that the GOP electorate has kicked the tires on essentially every single candidate as evidence that the party is unhappy about the Romney inevitability. Check out this article in the National Review Online by Michael Walsh. Walsh declares that Romney will lose the general if nominated. John Podhorezt's quote from the Walsh piece is pretty interesting: "The results last night (Iowa) make it clear that Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history, scoring fewer caucus votes in Iowa in 2012 than he received in 2008."
That seems like it is true, and I want it to be true. But the part that makes me scratch my head is that while there is evidence to support that claim, there is evidence to contradict it as well. Romney is a bit fluffy, yes - I want to believe that. But Romney is going to be the first candidate in a long time to win both Iowa and NH. Also, new polling reveals that Romney has double digit leads in NH and SC. Three wins at the front of the race would mean high times for the Romney campaign -- who would stop that momentum? So we're looking at the weakest candidate in recent political memory who is also steamrolling through the nomination like Calvin Johnson against the East Chattanooga State secondary. How would one square those opposite narratives?
Here's how I would square it -- They're both right. Romney is a weak candidate. In his career he's been floppin' and flappin' all over the ideological spectrum like a pregnant pigeon stuck in a storm drain. He's weak because he hasn't taken a strong stand on the issues near and dear to the GOP base. But think about it - what does that tell you about the rest of the field?!? The fact that this "weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history" is thoroughly dominating the early calendar tells you what you need to know about the remaining candidates. And don't get confused - if Romney wins all of those contests, he is DOMINATING. He's going to win in double digi's in NH, and possibly double digi's in SC. There's a lot of kerfuffel about Romney's weakness' and electoral misfires on MSNBC and similar outlets. That's spin - he's kinda rollin'. It's a headscratcher.
That seems like it is true, and I want it to be true. But the part that makes me scratch my head is that while there is evidence to support that claim, there is evidence to contradict it as well. Romney is a bit fluffy, yes - I want to believe that. But Romney is going to be the first candidate in a long time to win both Iowa and NH. Also, new polling reveals that Romney has double digit leads in NH and SC. Three wins at the front of the race would mean high times for the Romney campaign -- who would stop that momentum? So we're looking at the weakest candidate in recent political memory who is also steamrolling through the nomination like Calvin Johnson against the East Chattanooga State secondary. How would one square those opposite narratives?
Here's how I would square it -- They're both right. Romney is a weak candidate. In his career he's been floppin' and flappin' all over the ideological spectrum like a pregnant pigeon stuck in a storm drain. He's weak because he hasn't taken a strong stand on the issues near and dear to the GOP base. But think about it - what does that tell you about the rest of the field?!? The fact that this "weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history" is thoroughly dominating the early calendar tells you what you need to know about the remaining candidates. And don't get confused - if Romney wins all of those contests, he is DOMINATING. He's going to win in double digi's in NH, and possibly double digi's in SC. There's a lot of kerfuffel about Romney's weakness' and electoral misfires on MSNBC and similar outlets. That's spin - he's kinda rollin'. It's a headscratcher.
Bad News For Republicans... The Economy is Getting Better for Everyday Hardworking Americans... Uh-oh!
Bad news for Republicans today. The latest jobs report by the Department of Labor indicates the economy added 200,000 jobs in December. This is a big uh-oh for the republicans, who spend every Sunday in church praying for this country's failure. This report marks the 22nd straight month of economic growth, following 25 straight months of blistering job losses. Honestly, I don't think Obama is without fault, but i think it is indisputable at this point that Republicans view any news that could be considered "good" for Americans, and thus for this President, as bad news for themselves. There is something very wrong with this. Last week, Mitt Romney said the following: "We've never gone into permanent recession or depression," he continued. "The economy will come back after recession. The question is, did he help it or hurt it? Did he prolong the pain or reduce the pain? The truth is, he made things harder to recover; he made more people suffer longer.". I love the inevitability which Romney attributes to the economic recovery. The truth is, had Republicans been in charge, if we got any stimulus at all it would have been much, much smaller, and most likely have had a much larger percentage hard-targeted towards tax cuts for the wealthy. As it were, the chief criticism Obama receives from economists is that his stimulus bill wasn't big enough. The fact that Romney, and by reduction Republicans, now wish to portray economic recovery as an inevitably just shows how oblivious they are to the facts on the ground. Back in 2008, a legitimate Republican Senate candidate to unseat a sitting Senate Majority Leader made a comment that a barter economy wasn't such a bad thing. This is where we were headed! The total collapse of our economy was not outside the realm of possibility. Yet any good economic news is treated as a setback for Republicans. Give me a beej already.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Hypothetical "Steele" Cage Match: Herman Vs. Michael
While the level of divisiveness between parties has never been greater, intra-party squabbles continue to create political mayhem. In such instances, all paths to resolution must be explored. Which got us thinking, what politicians would be prime candidates for a Steel Cage Death Match! Well, who better to lead off than Michael "The Token Has Spoken" Steele! I'm sure there are quite a few Republicans that would like to have a crack at Mike. Well let's meet our challenger: Herman "The Human Sex Scandal" Cain! Cain's survival skills in the cage should no doubt be enhanced through his time spent leading that Prime A1 USDA grade Choice Cut Red Meat Republican bastion of conservative principles, the NRA nat'l restaurant association. He also brings his deadly "9-9-9" move to the cage, where he snipes and snips his way to complete oppositional deregulation! It's a fight to the death!
Honorable Republican ALERT:
Doesn't happen often, but I've got some news to report of an honorable Republican: While campaigning for Romney in NH, John McCain took an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC. Todd asked McCain if he felt bad for Gingrich (who had just been ad-bombed in Iowa), thinking McCain, a veteran of such tactics, might sympathize. McCain rightly and honestly said that this is a taste of what's to come with the Citizens United Case -- McCain called it: "the worst ruling in the history of the Supreme Court." McCain also referred to the "everlasting shame" that this dogshit decision will have on electoral politics. Intellectual honesty has been rare in this GOP campaign.
Frankly, Im a little surprised that the CU v. FEC decision isn't a bigger scandal coming out of Iowa. The Romney campaign spent $1.5 mil on positive ads in the state, while his PAC (made of three former Romney staffers) spent $2.8 million all on negative ads. The massive spending on negative ads by his PAC allowed Romney to claim he ran a completely clean campaign while his former aides carpet-bombed the Gingrich candidacy in Iowa. In the CU v. FEC decision, SCOTUS allows for unlimited campaign contributions under the condition that the PAC's and SuperPAC's are not directly coordinating with the candidate/campaign. What do you think? Did the Romney campaign orchestrate this ad strategy? Do you think Gingrich is right to believe that Romney secretly arranged for this? Give me a break. Violating this law could not be easier, the violation of this law is impossible to prove. This law was designed to be broken. Why is this not a bigger scandal?
Frankly, Im a little surprised that the CU v. FEC decision isn't a bigger scandal coming out of Iowa. The Romney campaign spent $1.5 mil on positive ads in the state, while his PAC (made of three former Romney staffers) spent $2.8 million all on negative ads. The massive spending on negative ads by his PAC allowed Romney to claim he ran a completely clean campaign while his former aides carpet-bombed the Gingrich candidacy in Iowa. In the CU v. FEC decision, SCOTUS allows for unlimited campaign contributions under the condition that the PAC's and SuperPAC's are not directly coordinating with the candidate/campaign. What do you think? Did the Romney campaign orchestrate this ad strategy? Do you think Gingrich is right to believe that Romney secretly arranged for this? Give me a break. Violating this law could not be easier, the violation of this law is impossible to prove. This law was designed to be broken. Why is this not a bigger scandal?
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Hypothetical Candidate of the Day: Gene Shalit
Given the un-inspiring nature of the potential Republican Presidential field, the excitement of which i can only compare to watching a televised chess tournament, we here at Bunk Bros have to decided to ponder the "what if's?" and offer our analyses of yet to declare potential Republican Candidates. Please note: actual political pre-disposition is entirely irrelevant for our purposes. Where applicable we will ponder possible ideological leanings based on the raw data available to us: looks, general demeanor, and gut instinct.
Over the coming days and weeks, we will be introducing for your consideration potential GOP presidential candidates. And what better way to kick off this new segment with television's own, Gene Shalit!
Age: 85 years old
Occupation: Humor
Potential Running Mate(s): George Whipple
Pro's to a Shalit White House: The bow-ties. A cuddly, non-threatening white guy to soothe all the Obama haters. Movie nights.
Completely unsupported hypothetical political predisposition: Shalit's got hands-off, small government laissez-faire economic policy written all over him. It's "Morning in America!" again with Shalit at the top of the ticket! Plus, as a secretly gay, closet homophobe, "Big" Gene would fit right in with about 72% of republicans in Congress!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)