A Race Nobody Can Win

So the latest polls have Mike Huckabee up an implausible nineteen points in Iowa and four points nationally. But he can't win, right? I mean, he's vulnerable on practically every non-social issue, he has a variety of skeletons in his closet, his policy team seems more or less nonexistent, he still doesn't have any money, and he has most of the GOP establishment united against him. He doesn't have a prayer - or maybe that's all he has.

Except, of course, that none of his rivals can win either. If you look at the field, every candidate seems to have near-disqualifying weaknesses (a point Larison has been making for months, I believe), which helps explain why nobody seems capable of getting above 30-35 percent in any national or state-level poll. McCain is still poison to a large chunk of the base and probably doesn't have enough money to capitalize even if he wins New Hampshire - and if he loses there, he's cooked. Mitt Romney is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any state except hyper-liberal Massachussetts. Rudy Giuliani is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any place except hyper-liberal New York City. Fred Thompson is more ideologically appropriate, but he's lived down to his lackluster record as a politician by running a remarkably lousy and (perhaps unremarkably) lazy campaign. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul.

Note that I'm not saying the Republican field is weak, exactly. In a certain sense, it's the most accomplished primary field of any major party in a long time; indeed, you could argue that almost all the GOP candidates (including Huckabee) have more impressive resumes than the three leading Democrats, who between them can boast about ten years in the Senate and the weird quasi-accomplishment of being First Lady. It's just that ideologically-speaking, none of the Republican contenders make nearly as much sense as candidates for the nomination of the present-day GOP as Obama, Clinton and Edwards do as candidates for the nomination of the present-day Democratic Party.

This probably explains why Democratic voters are happier with their candidates than Republicans; it also may help explain why the leading Republicans poll better in general-election matchups than you'd expect, given that 2008 looks poised to be a Democratic year. Say what you will about Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain, but judged purely on their accomplishments in life, they're much more impressive figures than, say, a Barack Obama. (And I find Obama's accomplishments impressive!) I don't expect that general-election voters will judge on resumes alone, which is why I expect the Democrats to take the White House. But it's worth keeping this discrepancy in mind once one of the candidates who can't possibly win the GOP nomination actually does.

Comments

Keep in mind that Ross is a two-time Bush voter, so his thoughts about which candidates are more impressive, accomplished, or promising have to be taken with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 10:19 AM

Mitt Romney is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any state except hyper-liberal Massachussetts. Rudy Giuliani is running on a record that would have made him a moderate Democrat in any place except hyper-liberal New York City.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but the above sentences are still incorrect.

Mitt Romney is running as an ideologically pure conservative who happens to hold some less than maintstream theological positions. He is pro-life, he demands tax cuts in a deficit-fueled recession and lauds "the market" in every debate, he wants to "double Gitmo" and calls for stay the course in Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani says over and over "tax cuts increase revenues", which is simply untrue, he defends torture, calls for continuing "war" against "Islamic terrorism", and says that knowing what he knows today, he would absolutely have invaded Iraq in 2003.

They are running away, as fast as they can, from everything in their resumes that might make them look like moderate Democrats.

Posted by DivGuy | December 8, 2007 10:42 AM

Keep in mind that Ross is a two-time Bush voter . . .

Two time Bush voter? Christ, I thought those creatures were merely a Diebold-concoction, giving new meaning to "do androids dream of electric sheep?"

What a bizarre mind Ross must be possessed of, and what a fanciful parallel universe he must inhabit!

RP2008

Posted by Klutometis | December 8, 2007 10:48 AM

Experience is an overrated virtue. Prior to politics, John McCain worked for his father-in-law's business. In his time in the Senate, McCain, who is not a lawyer, hasn't served a day on the Judiciary Committee, whereas Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. If experience is super important, then Obama is more qualified because he is more capable of selecting good Supreme Court justices, right?

The above problematic argument reveals two points. The objectives a candidate sets for his or her country will always be the most important factor. Obviously Ross wants John McCain making Supreme Court nominations more than Barack Obama; Obama's legal experience and McCain's lack of it are irrelevant. Also, I ask, what kind of experience matters? If it's only political experience, then Mitt Romney is the least qualified of all the candidates because he only held office for four years. But Mitt Romney has had a successful career in private sector that he wants Republican primary voters to know about far more than his record as governor of Massachusetts. Who says that's not good experience? Before entering politics, Obama was a community organizer, professor, and lawyer. Hey! He can multi-task. Isn't that a quality we want in a President?

If experience is a salient factor, then it should be measured qualitatively and not quantitatively. I don't care how many years McCain or Obama have spent in Washington, I want to know what they've done with the time they've had. Are they good at what they do? For example, Alberto Gonzales' experience has Attorney General doesn't make him qualified for anything -- after all, he was BAD AT HIS JOB.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | December 8, 2007 11:25 AM

"Keep in mind that Ross is a two-time Bush voter, so his thoughts about which candidates are more impressive, accomplished, or promising have to be taken with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt."

Unless I'm misreading him, Ross is mainly talking about which candidates are attractive from a Republican/conservative perspective, so the fact he voted for Bush twice doesn't undermine that. If anything, it makes his critique of the GOP's options from within the party stronger. Perspective, context, and all that.

I do think Ross's thoughts should be taken with a small grain of salt for other reasons, however. Ross hasn't spent much time outside of the Ivy League/blue-state twentysomething bubble, and as such doesn't necessarily have a good handle on what the GOP is really all about at the grassroots or base level. That doesn't make him a bad person or a bad analyst, but it is something to consider when one is talking political analysis as opposed to political theory. I think it would be a great idea for Ross to take a four-month sabbatical from the Atlantic and go to work for a GOP Congressional or state legislature campaign in someplace like Sugar Land or Amarillo, Texas. The experience would be an eye-opener, and might be grist for a good book.

Posted by Mark in Houston | December 8, 2007 11:45 AM

Mark in Houston suggests: "I think it would be a great idea for Ross to take a four-month sabbatical from the Atlantic and go to work for a GOP Congressional or state legislature campaign in someplace like Sugar Land or Amarillo, Texas. The experience would be an eye-opener, and might be grist for a good book."

It might also make him wonder why he's a member of a party that includes the sort of DeLay-loving muttonheaded slugs who leave trails of slime in places like Sugar Land. Good idea.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 11:55 AM

"the three leading Democrats, who between them can boast about ten years in the Senate and the weird quasi-accomplishment of being First Lady."

How does sixteen years (six for Edwards, three for Obama, seven for Hillary) become "about ten?"

Posted by David T | December 8, 2007 12:53 PM

the three leading Democrats, who between them can boast about ten years in the Senate and the weird quasi-accomplishment of being First Lady.

Clinton is now into her second term; Edwards completed a term in the Senate and Obama has now been in the Senate for three years. Judging from today, they have something like 16 years between them; by 2008 that'll be more like 18. Not decades and decades, a la McCain, but clearly not 10.

On the whole, though, nice post.

Posted by brad | December 8, 2007 1:00 PM

Damn you David--you beat me!

Posted by brad | December 8, 2007 1:02 PM

If Americans always voted for those who have the most "experience," Lincoln wouldn't have had a prayer. Two years in the House isn't much.

Posted by Matt Brown | December 8, 2007 1:05 PM

"For example, Alberto Gonzales' experience has Attorney General doesn't make him qualified for anything -- after all, he was BAD AT HIS JOB.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | December 8, 2007 11:25 AM"

From what I've read, Gonzales wasn't that bad a judge when he was part of an independent judiciary in Texas, at least by which a liberal can use to find the "good" conservative Republican judge in Texas. Once he was working right under Bush in any way, he became a massive tool willing to grab his ankles at any moment for the Decider. In fact, I think this reinforces your point. Gonzales had a lot of experience working for the law, yet he sucked at his job.

Posted by Reality Man | December 8, 2007 1:06 PM

So, what does it all add up to? J.E.B.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 8, 2007 1:13 PM

Senator Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.

I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as conservatives, and never will. Millionaire Mitt Romney is a Republican-in-name-only (RINO ) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. The White House isn’t for sale! Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?

However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this country. If a conservative runs as a conservative, he will win!

Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a nation, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?

Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our nation right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart.

Fred on the Issues (from www.Fred08.com)

National Security

The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:

* A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.

* A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.

* An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.

* A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.

* A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.

* A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

Federal Budget and Spending/Budgetary Reform


In a few short years—not a generation from now—a fiscal tsunami that could imperil our security and economic prosperity will hit our nation and place an unfair burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. The tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will be accumulated over the next few decades will do immense harm to our economy. This burden is now estimated at $170,000 per person and $440,000 per family. Time is running out to address this looming crisis. We need market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes. Given the scope and urgency of this problem, and the burden it will place on our children, reform is not only an economic necessity, it is a moral imperative that requires action now. I am committed to:

* Opening the government’s fiscal books on this looming crisis for all to see and understand.

* Working with individuals of all political persuasions to develop a comprehensive solution to the pending fiscal crisis.

* Leading and making the hard choices necessary, to include cutting wasteful government spending, to safeguard our security, promote our prosperity, and protect our children and grandchildren from fiscal calamity.

Tax Reform

The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:

* Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.

* A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.

Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.

Healthcare

Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some, however, choose not be insured; others cannot afford it. Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control. Those who propose a one-size-fits-all Washington-controlled program ignore the cost, inefficiency, and inadequate care that such a system offers. Access to affordable, portable health care can be made available for all Americans without imposing new mandates or raising taxes. Current government programs must also be streamlined and improved so that those who truly need help can get the health care they need. I am committed to a healthcare system that:

* Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families.

* Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility

* Modernizes delivery and administration of care by encouraging the widespread use of clinical best practices, medical information technology, and other innovations.

* Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers.

* Promotes and speeds medical research and life-sciences innovation.

Government Effectiveness

Our government is outdated, inefficient, and wasteful. It is often unable to perform even the most basic tasks our citizens expect. It is no longer enough just to want limited government; the American people deserve more effective government. Given today’s challenges, we cannot afford—and shouldn’t accept—anything less than a nimble, effective, and efficient government that is able to focus its resources on the important issues facing our country. It must be able act on behalf of the American people and our national interests in a timely manner. The key to competent government is strong, committed leadership from the top. The key to good government is good people who are well-managed and put the national interest first. I am committed to:

* Attracting and rewarding the best Americans to serve in government and ensuring they have the authority and resources needed to get the job done.

* Fixing government accounting so tax dollars are properly spent and the American people know exactly what they are being spent on.

* Improving government performance by making agencies accountable for accomplishing their missions on time and within budget.

* Ensuring information technology systems are secure and that they give our government the capacity and effectiveness to get the job done.

Building Strong Families

Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. To counter coarseness in today’s culture that oftentimes victimizes our children and undermines the traditional values parents want to instill, we must not only protect but strengthen the institutions of family and marriage. I am committed to:

* Using the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life, strengthen the institution of marriage and traditional families, and advance freedom of religion.

* Returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities—the states—and then protecting states from further intrusion by the federal government, the judiciary, and other states.

* Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.

Immigration

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:

* Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.

* Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Education

A well-educated citizenry is vital to our security, our economy, and our democracy. Despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on education by Washington each year, and the hundreds of federal education programs now in place, our children are still falling behind, particularly in subjects crucial to the global economy in which we live. At a time when America is behind other developed countries in education excellence, the federal role in education is too intrusive and too bureaucratic, and has become part of the problem. State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools, and best situated to implement changes and innovations that best educate children. I am committed to:

* Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy.

* Reviewing federal programs for cost-effectiveness, reducing federal mandates, returning education money to the states, and empowering parents by promoting voucher programs, charter schools, and other innovations that enhance education excellence through competition and choice.

* Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity.

* Promoting transparency to assess performance, promote accountability, and share innovations in education at all levels.

Appointing Judges Faithful To Our Constitution

Activist judges across the country seem intent on legislating from the bench to promote a culture of abortion, redefine marriage, and undermine families—in effect re-shaping the values of our entire society without the consent of the people. We need judges who recognize their role in our democracy is to interpret, not make, the law. I am committed to:

* Appointing strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench.

Energy Security

The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:

* A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.

* Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.

* An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.

* Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Second Amendment

I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

* Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.

* Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

Posted by F. Keith Paxson | December 8, 2007 1:33 PM

----- CLINTON SLEAZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22

Posted by avraam jack | December 8, 2007 1:43 PM

Re: Fucknut Keith Paxson's post at 1:33

What ever possessed you to deposit that Thompson-sized turd here?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 2:05 PM

Wow! The Fred Thompson & avraam jack responses are so "pro forma!" I just can't even think of a more educational example of the sort of non-listening, unengaged kind of lecture narcissism that the Repubs have been engaging in the last decade. Read it and weep, but please talk sense and consider that the folks who don't agree with you are convinced of their views as well. Until we stop lecturing each other and start doing the compromises that are necessary to actually run the country, we are a lost people.

Posted by bandguy | December 8, 2007 2:07 PM

The Republicans have relied all along on a hard core of ignorant religious fanatics, and the elite group of super-Republicans within that core prays every night that Armageddon will come soon. These people are not terribly hard to fool, and it would be wrong to call them volatile, but at a certain point the shit ends up hitting the fan.

[1]And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. [2] And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. [3] And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. [4] And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. [5] And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

If you don't understand how this passage could possibly reveal the true meaning of the 2008 Presidential election, you will be unable to communicate with a key sector of the Republican base. And I'm sure that all of the major candidates have Revelation-spinners hard at work, but when the religiously insane get upset, they're hard to talk to.

Posted by John Emerson | December 8, 2007 2:13 PM

[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
[10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
[11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

So you see, Romney can't win.

Posted by John Emerson | December 8, 2007 3:16 PM

[6] And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
[7] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
[8] And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
[9] And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
[10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
[11] And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
[15] And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
[16] And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
[17] For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

So you see, Romney can't win.

Posted by John Emerson | December 8, 2007 3:16 PM

Bandguy: I wouldn't call avraam jack's comment 'pro forma'; I'd call it 'paranoid insanity'.

Posted by Nate | December 8, 2007 3:43 PM

"Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul."

Well, I guess the author tired himself out writing all of the specific reasons the other candidates won't win. When he came to Ron Paul, he just didn't have the energy to write why Dr. Paul is unelectable. Or, did he.

The fact is, there are NO reasons why Dr. Paul should not be elected.

I read this piece as an endorsement for Dr. Paul.

Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity are coming in '08.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by J. Delk | December 8, 2007 4:42 PM

These guys are hard to parody.

Posted by John Emerson | December 8, 2007 5:30 PM

The fact is, there are NO reasons why Dr. Paul should not be elected.

Unless you happen to be someone who thinks the leader of the American government should believe in, you know, American government.

Remind me the last time a libertarian candidate won more than 3% of the national vote?

Posted by TR | December 8, 2007 5:50 PM

Fred Who

Ron Who?

Posted by Ron /Fred Bore | December 8, 2007 6:49 PM

Ron Paul believes in government as the founders saw it, and that my friend is as American as you can get.

Good thing he's not running as a Libertarian, he is a Republican.

Paul will place 3rd in Iowa, and 1st in New Hampshire - you have my word on that!

Posted by Michael Cathcart | December 8, 2007 6:49 PM

Ron Paul Rocks !!!

The only candidate who actually uses Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis.

He is not afraid to discuss the tough issues with substantive rational and honesty.

There is nothing fake about Ron Paul. He is not driven to pander because of an alternative agenda.

The Constitution is his guide and he takes the oath of office seriously.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.

Posted by Brad | December 8, 2007 8:00 PM

Keep in mind that Ross is a two-time Bush voter, so his thoughts about which candidates are more impressive, accomplished, or promising have to be taken with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt.

Keep in mind that Jim Keane, posting under a variety of names including MoeLarryAndJesus, has been banned by Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism so his attempts to contribute to any dialog should be taken with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt.

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 9:20 PM

FRED THOMPSON can win! He has smart, clear policy proposals for the major issues the country faces and is not afraid to tackle tough problems. He speaks honestly and passionately about the conservative principles that he has believed in all his life. He is a grown-up who is not running for president to get into the spotlight or to gain power/status, but simply because he loves his country and feels called to serve it. If you do not know much about Fred please check him out at www.fred08.com.

Posted by Kathleen | December 8, 2007 9:50 PM

It's quite true that I was banned by Wikipedia under the usernames MoeLarryAndJesus and TortureIsWrong after I ran into problems with some of the Bushpig-loving dummies and feebs who infest that site. There was actually a long discussion about how the name TortureIsWrong was offensive, which would tell any non-Bushpig where that site has gone wrong. It's still a worthwhile project, but the administration of it is a mess.

Unlike the supporters of Dumbya Bush, I consider torture to be wrong and the use of it to be a betrayal of American principles. For some reason most American conservatives no longer agree with that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 9:51 PM

Yep, yep. This is what makes it such a weird Republican year. Senator Campaign Finance/ Anti-Tobacco can't win a Republican primary after all the bridges he burned in 2000-2002. The Mormon who was once a pro-choice Massachusetts governor and is now a robotic flip-flopper can't win. The sleepwalking actor can't win. The pro-choice pro-gay New Yorker who's never held office above the municipal level and hasn't held any office in six years can't win. The economically wet goofy underfunded minister can't win. But someone has to.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy | December 8, 2007 9:54 PM

I don't get it. Are the Fred supporters mocking Ron Paul supporters or are they being serious?

Posted by Mark Adams | December 8, 2007 9:58 PM

Does Bush using signing statements as part of the theory of the unitary executive thereby bypassing the Veto-Override system used to regulate the power of the Executive and Legislative branches of your precious federal government give any of you guys pause? Bush is only the latest escalation in a pattern that began with Regan and continued with every subsequent president upping the ante in the stakes for unlimited presidential power. Ever heard of Habeus Corpus? How about Separation of Powers? Do any of you intellectual titans think this trend is going to stop with any of the current crop of soulless clowns running for president on either side of the aisle? Do you even give a damn?, or are you so caught up arguing about Abortion and Gay Marriage you can't tell when your hair's on fire. Je...s. This is what passes for American Citizenship. What a sad, sick joke.

Posted by Scott | December 8, 2007 10:02 PM

Scott asks: "Ever heard of Habeus Corpus? How about Separation of Powers? Do any of you intellectual titans think this trend is going to stop with any of the current crop of soulless clowns running for president on either side of the aisle?"

Actually, yeah - I'd feel comfortable enough with Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and Paul in that regard. Even John McCain would, I think, regain enough of his lost mojo to roll back the power of the executive. All of these guys have spent time in the Senate, where I think there's a real feeling for what has been betrayed over the last few decades.

Giuliani would be the absolute worst choice in this regard - I don't think he has any respect at all for limits to his own power. Clinton and Romney give me similar creeps here.

I'm hoping against hope that numerous criminal prosecutions of Bushpigs occur after 1-20-09. These maggots deserve multiple squashings, all the way up to the top. That probably won't happen.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 8, 2007 10:17 PM

Yeah that's right, the American Revolution was won by George Washington who single-handedly engaged a British champion in one to one combat and won freedom for the country, ditto Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, right? Lincoln had a mean left hook eh? Oh yeah, and Roosevelt and Truman taking on Tojo and Hitler in that tag-team match. Wow! the body slams. It was AWESOME!!!!!
I can hardly wait to see the next president in the ring. McCain's pretty buff for a Gomer. Yeah the American people didn't have anything to do with securing their freedom, it was their glorious leader! The Glorious Regan, The Glorious Bush, The Glorious Clinton, and now the Glorious Republican nominee. Go back to sleep Moe.

Posted by Scott | December 8, 2007 11:24 PM

It's just that ideologically-speaking, none of the Republican contenders make nearly as much sense as candidates for the nomination of the present-day GOP...

I blame it all on that dude with the camcorder -- the one who looks like a Macacca.

Posted by Jasper | December 8, 2007 11:54 PM

I take it the "Ron Paul" reference was to get your hit count up. Congrats.

Posted by Alex | December 9, 2007 12:27 AM

Scott mumbles: "Yeah that's right, the American Revolution was won by George Washington who single-handedly engaged a British champion in one to one combat and won freedom for the country, ditto Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, right? Lincoln had a mean left hook eh? Oh yeah, and Roosevelt and Truman taking on Tojo and Hitler in that tag-team match. Wow! the body slams. It was AWESOME!!!!!
I can hardly wait to see the next president in the ring. McCain's pretty buff for a Gomer. Yeah the American people didn't have anything to do with securing their freedom, it was their glorious leader! The Glorious Regan, The Glorious Bush, The Glorious Clinton, and now the Glorious Republican nominee. Go back to sleep Moe."

Eat a dick, Scott. Yeah, you're right, we're all doomed and no president will ever be any better than Dumbya or Reagan in the personal liberty department.

Kill yourself. There is no hope, all is lost, we're all doomed. Kill yourself.

Pussy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 9, 2007 3:21 AM

Democrats seem eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. They wouldnt know the meaning of the word "electable" if their lives depended on it (keeping in mind the fact that in 1992, Bush Sr lost the election due to his own incompetence, and Clinton was the winner by default, in a year when even a yokel like Perot could garner votes).

The Dems robotically fall into line behind their pet partisan candidates, Hillary and Obama, not taking into account the fact that the Fox News attack machine will make mincemeat of them both (youll lose count of how many times their anchors "accidentally" call him Osama or use his other infamous "middle name" in a derogatory fashion). The Republican nominee will beat either of them, and then Bush can leave office with a self-satisfied triumphant leer, trumpeting the electoral victory as a "mandate" about the success of his administration. Then Democrats can spend another eight years whining about the "injustice" of it all, instead of blaming themselves as they should. You wont have Gore to play the martyr for you this time.

The answer for Democrats? Bill Richardson. He IS the most electable of their candidates, and he can beat any of the republicans by the fact that he will easily win the majority of the independent vote (ideologically he is very close to being one of us) and will even coax many of the dissatisfied Republicans into "crossing over" to vote for him. He has the necessary executive and diplomatic experience, and his personal life is apparently spotless and beyond reproach (unlike the Clintons) and he is more or less "fireproof" to the Republican attack machine. Against an anti-gun candidate like Rudy, he would even have an ironic chance to do the improbable: get the NRA vote.

Democrats in the primary states need to ask themselves which is more important to them: do they prefer to persist in a misguided attempt to force the Clintons back into power by riding on the widespread loathing of Bush (so that they can wear the arrogant smirks of incumbent power that the right wing fundamentalists have had fixed on their faces since 9/11), or do they prefer to actually win the general election. Bush is leaving either way, but by presenting a nominee mired in controversy, the Dems will give the Reps an opportunity to muddy the debate waters and put the Dems on defense, instead of being able to take the battle to the Reps and forcing THEM to defend a terrible administration.

The choice is yours, Democrats. You can either learn how to properly win an election, or you can give it up now (by nominating the unelectable Hillary or Obama) and avoid the christmas rush next year. The Reps are already showing signs of ditching their controversial candidates and going for a "second tier" candidate that is more electable (because they know how to win elections). As an independent who very much wants to support the Democrat this year, I hope you make the right choice, and offer me and my fellow "swing voters" one that we CAN support. If you dont, then spare us the crocodile tears when your candidate concedes defeat in a year, as you wont deserve to shed them. Youve had plenty of warning, as have the Republicans, but they are heeding the warning. Do likewise, Dems, or Ill have no pity for you.

One last point: If you vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, then you are a sexist. If you vote for Obama simply because he is black, then you are a racist. It's that simple. It would be no better than voting for one of the others because they are a "white male". Bias based upon gender or race is bias, period.

Posted by Saint Subversive | December 9, 2007 11:26 AM

If you vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, then you are a sexist. If you vote for Obama simply because he is black, then you are a racist.

And if I vote for either in 2008 because I'm a Democrat, then I'm a ... partisan?

Is ANYONE informed enough to read this blog, going to vote for Hillary *because* she's a woman, or for Obama *because* he's black?

Posted by Anderson | December 9, 2007 3:13 PM

Moe has awakened. Yes Moe....excuse me while I put down this serving of dick, or was that pussy...? Yes, Well you are correct that no president is going to limit his own power regardless of his seeming personal majesty. The founders realized this from bitter experience and lengthy study so they invented this crazy thing called "Separation of Powers." Since they couldn't depend on King George to declare it as law they decided to have a freak'in big fight called a revolution where a whole bunch of citizens got riled up and started kicking some ass. Did you notice that, unlike previous chief executives, some of bushs unconstitutional powers have actually been granted him by congress. Has that ever happened before in the history of the United States? Seems like it could be important. Gee I guess the average American is going to have to do more than just post weblogs and argue about who the next political savior should be.

Posted by Scott | December 9, 2007 4:03 PM

>> And if I vote for either in 2008 because I'm a Democrat, then I'm a ... partisan?

Yeah, that's how it would work. Youre getting the whole idea behind being an "independent" now (aka the "deciders" in the general election that both sides need to win) ... we dont vote for whoever the "partisans" on either side order us to support (more often, we've been required to choose between "the lesser of two evils"). Anyone who does vote that way (on either side) is a large part of the problem (how partisans do love to be loved by their fellow partisans, even when they are blatantly wrong, bigod at least they are proud to be unified in their cluelessness).

You might as well be a robot with that kind of flaky justification for your blind voting habits. If they nominated OJ Simpson, would you be loyal to him also because youll "support whoever my party nominates"? That kind of loyalty and a dollar will buy you a glass of beer to drown your sorrows next November at your local bar, where youll be sure to find plenty of other Hillary heads doing the same. Only Kucinich and Paul have had the courage to say "no, I wont support the nominee unless I believe they will be a good president with policies that I agree with". Such honesty is guaranteed to offend the 24 hour party sheeple, who value empty headed partisan conformity over common sense.

Both parties like to delude themselves into believing that they are the majority. If that's true, then try electing a president with just the support of your "base" and see how far it gets you. The truth is, the real majority doesnt even bother to vote at all, much less belong to one of the two corrupt parties. The day that Dems and Reps start to give a damn about reaching those non-voters (and finding out the reasons they dont vote) is the day they might start giving us decent candidates that can unite the country, instead of further dividing it, which I think is actually the way they prefer things. Life just wouldnt be the same for them without political enemies to endlessly demonize.

Posted by Saint Subversive | December 9, 2007 5:15 PM

Balls. The country is going to split the ticket. If the Dems look like they'll keep congress, then it will be Romney.

Posted by wellbasically | December 10, 2007 2:05 AM

Funny, really - but my newest video is kind of about just this topic...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cuWUdUDUIDQ

Posted by Lee Stranahan | December 10, 2007 2:11 AM

Having watched Tom Brokow's "1968" last night on the History Channel, I found the following comment (from another blog) hilarious:

"Personally, I can't wait to see the Minneapolis police go berserk clubbing all those Brooks Brothers Rioters in business suits out in the streets."

Posted by ann | December 10, 2007 8:20 AM

F. Keith Paxson is the perfect example of why Fred can't win. He so lazy trolls have to be employed to make people remember he is even in the race.

Ron Paul has an army of potheads and racists and no preachers. To think he even has a chance at the Republican nomination with that kind of supporters is to prove you are smoking too much pot. Crawl out of the basement dudes! The fact that Paul is right about the war is no great achievement; even stopped clocks are right twice a day. Leave Mom's house, quit raiding her purse to buy dope and get a job!

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Radical Republics! Hell, Satan might win if the Demoncrats nominate him!

Posted by Terrier | December 10, 2007 12:50 PM

Ron Paul is the only viable winnable candidate. Period. If the GOP wants to win, it has to get behind Ron Paul. The reason the GOP is trying to kill off Ron Paul is because the GOP doesnt OWN Ron Paul.

Any vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hillary or Obama, period. end. If you vote for anyone but Ron Paul, you are voting to have your life further enslaved and controlled by corrupt bankers who are debasing the currency and causing us to mire in stagflation.

The people want america back! RON PAUL!

Posted by Mick Russom | December 10, 2007 7:31 PM

@ Terrier :

You are liar and scoundrel to say these libelous things against Ron Paul. You are the idiot strung on Prozac to think Ron Pauls people are pot heads. You disgust me, and the founding fathers would regect your kind as the traitor scum you are.

Prepare for people who are trying to fix america to literally despise you for your dementing thinking that more of the same when things are so screwed up would be a good things.

Posted by Mick Russom | December 10, 2007 7:33 PM

@ " Ron /Fred Bore " who posted on December 8, 2007 6:49 PM

Nameless faceless puke who? (that would be you)

Posted by Mick Russom | December 10, 2007 7:35 PM

So who is the best GOP candidate?
Huckabee--scares me a little bit with his record in Arkansas. He's definitely not a fiscal conservative, and when he brings religion into the conversation every few minutes, he sounds like some former governor of Texas who does the same thing. I think he lives in the White House.
However, I do think he is a man of principle.

Romney--give me a break. Who would vote for this clown? He changes positions on important issues almost as fast as the weather changes. If you're looking for the most untrustworthy candidate, then he's your man.

Paul--when I hear him speak, I think "crazy old man". I think he's got come backbone, but do we really need a polarizing figure like this running the country?

Guiliani--"wolf in sheep's clothing" comes to mind. The only thing Republican about this guy is views on the war on terror. Other than that, he's about as liberal as they come.

Thompson--is this guy still alive? I mean, I havn't seen him in a while, and the last time I did, he wasn't looking so hot.

McCain--never seems to be making too many friends with his issues. He tends to be very stubborn when he believes he's right on isses, and it gets him in trouble. Like Huckabee, he's definitely a man of principle, and he's the only candidate I seem to trust. He's a fiscal conservative, and the only one who has the record to back it up. Immigration has hurt him, but the funny part of it is, Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani all supported the immigration reform bill that got McCain in so much trouble. The only difference is that they have changed their views to pander to the electorate, while McCain has stood firm.

When I look at the candidates, I'm looking for someone who will go to Washington and actually get things done. I'm looking for someone who will be a real fiscal conservative. A man of integrity. The only guy who fits that desciption is John McCain.

Posted by Jason | December 11, 2007 10:24 AM

I agree, I think that if its not Huckabee, it will be McCain for the Republicans, Rudy is finished (and good riddance to the evil little man). But any Democrat who thinks Hillary or Obama will easily beat either of them is living in a fantasy world in which everyone loves Rosie O'Donnell too. Just because the Rep candidates are relatively weak doesnt mean Dems can just sit back and relax and glide their way into a sure victory with any candidate they want. It's going to take alot of hard work (and a strong candidate) to pull this one out.

It's not a year for rolling the dice, its a year for stacking the odds as much in your favor as possible, and to do that, youll need an experienced moderate with low negatives and controversy, not a vapid party favor that will antagonize the other side into a record turnout to vote against you. This election is far too important to be playing "gotcha" games meant to irritate the opposition. Nominate Hillary, and youll find out just how unpopular she really is outside of your party.

Please, do the country a favor and give us Bill Richardson instead, so that I can enthusiastically join your celebrations in a year when he wins, instead of having to say "I told you so" as I shake my head in pity at how incompetent you are. The last thing we need is Bush leaving office with his arrogant smirk intact. It's your election to lose, Dems. Wake up now, and vote for sanity in 2008. Nominate Bill Richardson. Youll be glad you did, and so will I.

Posted by saintsubversive | December 16, 2007 3:18 PM