Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Schadenfreude you can taste...

So you've got a Republican front-runner with what appears to be a commanding lead in the delegate count, and much of the conservative establishment hates him. Whether he's not conservative enough or just not their kind of conservative? Doesn't matter. They still hate him.

You've got a slipping Republican second-place man who is a johnny-come-lately to the conservative fold. The conservative establishment isn't sure whether to trust him, but they trust him more than the front-runner. There's also the basic suspicion about his religion, which to many Christians' standards isn't really Christian.

You've got someone who was a dark-horse third place Republican candidate, but he's (by some counts) neck-and-neck in the delegate count with the second-place guy, and the conservative establishment hates him too. They're also pissed because he played a more successful political game in West Va than his opponents. Backroom deals? There's a pot and a kettle out here...

Finally, you've got a kooky last-place Republican candidate who may pull enough delegates to have a voice (if not a chance) at the convention. Yep, you guessed it, the conservative establishment hates him too.

I forsee a lot of disillusioned Republicans. Maybe so disillusioned even the spectre of Hillary Clinton can't rouse them...


( 26 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:09 am (UTC)
One can only hope, Clinton / Clinton for '08!
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:25 am (UTC)
Brat.... XD
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:41 am (UTC)
That's one that I've heard a couple of time already.

The Republican's are already saying that is Hilary wins, we automatically get Bill as VP. No matter who is publically the running mate.
Feb. 6th, 2008 08:25 am (UTC)
I still think he was a good President, if a little stupid in matters of opportunistic lust...

...certainly better than the nightmare demagogue with dictatorial power grabs we have suffered for the past 8 years. "One Nation, Under Surveillance..."

I don't really believe Bill would have more influence than any other First Spouse has had.
Feb. 6th, 2008 09:06 am (UTC)
Make him Sec of State.

Gets him out from underfoot (and away from interns) and He's really good at international relations.
Feb. 6th, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC)
Nah, nominate him for SCOTUS.
Feb. 6th, 2008 06:31 pm (UTC)
It would be great! He would get his own house as Veep, and could entertain as many interns as he wanted to.
Feb. 6th, 2008 11:32 am (UTC)
Yeah, talk about political theater!

Oh, and in case you want to register with the class of '08, here's a link . . .


Feb. 6th, 2008 07:23 pm (UTC)
What the hell... I registered. Not like I'm going to be making it back...
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:40 pm (UTC)
I doubt the conservative christians will be walking around with snarky "I smoted" stickers this time around? :)
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:53 pm (UTC)
Living in red state country, I can assure you that the Republicans will unite and hold their noses and vote for whoever is running against Hillary. I think the people on the coasts sometimes don't understand just how much the Clintons are hated in flyover land.

For the record, I am a Libertarian but I voted yesterday in the open Democratic primary in my state.
Feb. 6th, 2008 04:33 pm (UTC)
I completely agree.
Feb. 6th, 2008 05:30 pm (UTC)
I saw that Idaho went for Obama. I'm just gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
Feb. 6th, 2008 06:30 pm (UTC)
There are a lot of LDS in Idaho as well as Utah and Obama won points by not campaigning in Salt Lake City when it turned out the Mormon Church's president's funeral was that day. If he had attended the funeral, the media circus would have followed and disrupted it, and had he not he would have looked insensitive. So forgoing an appearance was seen by many LDS as a classy move. I don't think that hurt any.
Feb. 6th, 2008 06:40 pm (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt that a lot of the rank and file will unite against Clinton.

The Republican candidates for the nomination are tearing each other down so bad, though, it can't but leave a mark at the end.
Feb. 6th, 2008 03:55 pm (UTC)
Interesting thoughts!
Feb. 6th, 2008 06:06 pm (UTC)

As to disillusioned Republicans, I wouldn't go throwing your shoulder out from patting yourselves on the back just yet. The Democrats are in even worse shape.

The conservative Republicans have a _long_ history of dealing with disillusionment in their candidates. Twenty years long, in fact, since the last conservative Republican they could line up for was Reagan. Just about every time since then they've sucked it up and showed up come November to vote for their party's man.

The only way the current bout of disillusionment could work for the Democrats is if they field an overly conservative candidate (by their standards) and the Republicans match them with an overly liberal one. And neither Hillary nor McCain fit that bill. McCain may well be a RINO (Republican In Name Only) but he's spot on conservative in several key areas. Areas which neither Hillary nor Obama come even close to. That will be a huge motivating factor come November.

Also, bear in mind that the disillusionment is being magnified by a Main Stream Media (MSM) that is of liberal bias and willfully seeks out any disagreeable thing to say about the Republicans that they can.

Now, if you think the GOP has problems with disillusionment, you've not looked over on the Democrat side.

Obama represents a generational difference for the Democrats. He is "New School" to Hillary's "Old Guard." Obama has the youth, the young, Hope, Change and being black going for him. Hillary has none of that. She represents the powers that be in the Democrat party - the ones that have lost each of the last presidential elections and the ones that have fielded the worst Congress in decades.

When Hillary clinches the nomination it will an an entirely Pyrrhic victory. She and her husband have revealed themselves as being so intent on getting power that they'll stoop to any depth to get it. This is nothing new for Billary, they've been doing this for decades now. The thing is they were usually doing it against Republicans so the MSM gave them a pass for their sleaze. This time though, not only did they try their underhanded tricks on a fellow Democrat but they also went after one the MSM had anointed as their favorite son - the "New JFK" in fact. Thus there was no more passes given them for their appalling and divisive mendacity.

Think how that's gonna play out come November.

Obama's been attracting political newbies in droves. These are starry eyed optimists who think the grubby and dirty world of national politics a grubby and dirty thing. They see their guy as being above all that and they're watching as Hillary is using one dirty trick against Obama after another. To say that's leaving a foul taste in their mouths is an understatement. When Hillary wins the nomination in August it might well so disgust Obama's legions that they decide to stay away from the polls this November.

McCain will be seen as a moderate and being far more honorable and decent than Hillary could ever even attempt. Given that, this might fully play into the Republican's hands even more than any disillusioned conservative's absence ever could.

Feb. 6th, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that the disillusionment is being magnified by a Main Stream Media (MSM) that is of liberal bias and willfully seeks out any disagreeable thing to say about the Republicans that they can.

And here I was just looking at what Coulter, Limbaugh, FOXnews and other conservative outlets were saying about the race...

And Reagan was hardly a conservative in his actions. Reagan as the conservative paragon is pure fantasy. He was a pragmatic, and sucked it up whenever he had to.

Edited at 2008-02-06 06:51 pm (UTC)
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)

Yup, a couple of conservative talking heads and one TV network that likes to say it's "balanced" in its coverage. This, versus the rest of the national media. The media loves even a hint of controversy and goes after it avidly.

Yup, the Gipper was real good about doing his dance. They didn't call him the "Teflon President" just because none of the criminal actions of his subordinates managed to stick to him as well. Reagan was good at shifting his position and being pragmatic when necessary. He was also the most truly conservative president the Republicans have had in decades. That's what the modern Republican conservatives like to remember about Bonzo.

Feb. 6th, 2008 07:22 pm (UTC)
Yup, a couple of conservative talking heads and one TV network that likes to say it's "balanced" in its coverage. This, versus the rest of the national media. The media loves even a hint of controversy and goes after it avidly.

So I'll take the hook. Moderate interests control most of TV news; it's a compromise between corporate ownership and "objective" journalism schools. Conservative interests control most of radio news, and I'm not one to discount radio's influence. Newspapers and non-fiction books are pretty evenly split, but I would give the edge in newspapers to moderates and liberals and the edge in books to conservatives.

Liberal interests control most entertainment. That's not news, though.

However, you miss the point. I said I was reading conservative outlets (newspaper and TV) and commentators, and they were butchering McCain, cautiously supporting Romney and having kittens over Huckabee and Paul. It's been pretty consistent over the past few months. I regularly check the "Fair and Balanced" FOXnews to see if they're covering these stories too. Usually I see blank space ("Fair and Absent" anyone?). Even FOXnews has had to report on this, much to their chagrin.

Edited at 2008-02-06 07:25 pm (UTC)
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:59 pm (UTC)

No, I caught the point. Mine was that the disillusionment of the conservatives in the Republican party is being overblown. This, even by conservative Republican commentators. The Primaries are the one time in the election cycle in which the ideological extremists - on both sides - come to the fore. After the Conventions both the Republicans and Democrats expect their ideological purists to head back to their caves and not get in the way of winning the general election.

That's why I see the current whining about McCain being so inconsequential over the long haul. It's not gonna matter much come November.

However, over on the Democrat side, it's not ideology which is making a difference it's how vindictive and underhanded Hillary is being in going after the nomination. Differences of slight degree in ideology are one thing and are pretty easily brushed aside come the general election. The personal, vindictive, and malicious actions by the Clintons are something else. That is personal and it's not something the Obama supporters are liable to so easily forget let alone forgive.

Now, as to the MSM. The entertainment media is unabashedly liberal and leftist in its bias, its outlook, and its core. The news media is predominately liberal and leftist as well. Corporate ownership generally has little effect on the newsroom and editorial policy. Those still remain the purview of the left wing. This, with few exceptions and almost none of those operate on a national level.

Journalism itself is part of the "liberal arts" and is not noted for attracting folk of a conservative or right wing outlook. And even when it does precious few of such people manage to get through our universities to earn degrees in that field.

The training and breeding ground for journalists are those universities and colleges. In the halls of American Academia the left wing - the far left wing - is almost completely dominant. There are open and outright Marxists and Communists teaching students as to how e-vile America and the West truly is. Dissenting views on campus are crushed by demands for "political correctness" and "diversity awareness." That's why we get the likes of Ward Churchill celebrating 9/11 because it caused the deaths of so many "little Eichmanns" and Columbia University professor De Genova calling for a "million Mogadishus" to punish America and declaring "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military."

With that being about the going standard in our universities is it any wonder that our "journalists" and news media which graduates from them turns out to be biased as well?

Feb. 6th, 2008 06:34 pm (UTC)
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is Democrats vote their hearts, Republicans vote Republican.
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:14 pm (UTC)
Having been a registered Republican on and off my whole life, in 30 years of voting I've only once voted for a Republican, only to be disappointed with the result (Reagan's second term).
Feb. 6th, 2008 07:21 pm (UTC)

And that means what, exactly? That Democrats can only vote on emotional reasons? That they don't think about what they're doing, only "feel" instead? That Democrats, being such thoughtless creatures, are thus easily led astray by charlatans?

Have a care when using so overly broad a brush in tarring those you disagree with. Over half the electorate in the country are non-Democrats and it is thus to the peril of the Democrat party to declare e-vile those they disagree with when so outnumbered by them.

Feb. 6th, 2008 08:12 pm (UTC)
Whoa! Down, boy! I could just as easily say Democrats vote their heads or their wallets or whatever else one may use to make an independent decision, and Republicans vote Republican.

I make no value judement.
Feb. 6th, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)

Aye, you could say that.

But that's not what you _did_ say.

And generally speaking, I've encountered far more Democrats who've declared they intend to vote Democrat no matter their party's candidate nor their views nor the opposition's candidate. I don't think there's a Republican version of the phrase; "Yellow Dog Democrat" but I'm sure there's more than a few Republicans who are similarly blindly partisan. It's just that I've come across more Democrats who boast of being such.

This, particularly over the past three election cycles.

( 26 comments — Leave a comment )