Major SC Newspaper Endorses Jon Huntsman

Clown of the week
Politics • Views: 33,224

South Carolina’s The State newspaper is now endorsing Jon Huntsman in the Republican race.

It’s as if conservatives are playing “Wheel of Fortune;” every week they spin the wheel to see which of these interchangeable candidates is going to be the new kid on the block for a few days.

And please note — calling Huntsman a “moderate” is simply not accurate, except by comparison to frothing radicals like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

Jump to bottom

103 comments
1 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:33:12am

Seems sort of a waste to me. At this point, Huntsman isn't really running anymore for this year's nomination, just brownie points towards the '16 election.

2 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:35:23am

re: #1 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seems sort of a waste to me. At this point, Huntsman isn't really running anymore for this year's nomination, just brownie points towards the '16 election.

almost the entire campaign process is a waste of time...the paper is simply sending a message...sort of a police lineup in reverse

3 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:35:48am

I wonder if Paul will run again in 2016. 80 is pushing it.

4 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:36:50am

I endorse Jon Huntsman's pretty face and hot salt-and-pepper!

5 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:38:35am

re: #3 SpaceJesus

I wonder if Paul will run again in 2016. 80 is pushing it.

Nah, figure this is his last rodeo. After this year, he'll have no pulpit to preach from for the next 4.

6 recusancy  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:39:15am

re: #3 SpaceJesus

I wonder if Paul will run again in 2016. 80 is pushing it.

Rand will.

7 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:40:04am

re: #5 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Nah, figure this is his last rodeo. After this year, he'll have no pulpit to preach from for the next 4.

give up your hobby just because you're 80?

8 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:42:46am

re: #6 recusancy

Aqua Buddha? Is his training complete?

9 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:43:04am

We got a big fish...
Radio communications indicate US drone strike may have killed Pakistani Taliban leader

The claim that the Pakistani Taliban chief was killed came from officials who said they intercepted a number of Taliban radio conversations. In about a half a dozen intercepts, the militants discussed whether their chief, Hakimullah Mehsud, was killed on Jan. 12 in the North Waziristan tribal area. Some militants confirmed Mehsud was dead, and one criticized others for talking about the issue over the radio.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters.

Pakistani Taliban spokesman Asimullah Mehsud denied the group’s leader was killed and said he was not in the area where the drone strike occurred.

10 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:44:29am

re: #9 Killgore Trout

We got a big fish...
Radio communications indicate US drone strike may have killed Pakistani Taliban leader

At least he wasn't peed on.

11 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:45:11am

re: #9 Killgore Trout

We got a big fish...
Radio communications indicate US drone strike may have killed Pakistani Taliban leader

Well, that should go over at the peace talks like a fart in church.

12 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:46:15am

re: #11 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Well, that should go over at the peace talks like a fart in church.

was a truce called?

13 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:46:41am

re: #11 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Well, that should go over at the peace talks like a fart in church.

Heh. I think it's a great starting point for negotiations.

14 jaunte  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:46:49am

Oldest singer's tomb ever, found in Egypt:
[Link: english.ahram.org.eg...]

Early studies carried out by the Swiss team revealed that the tomb dates back to the 22nd Dynasty (945-712 BC) and it belongs to the daughter of Amun Re, lecture priest in Karnak temples and also the singer of the God Amun Re.

15 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:47:11am

re: #13 Killgore Trout

Heh. I think it's a great starting point for negotiations.

so do I...pour it on

16 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:49:55am

re: #10 Killgore Trout

At least he wasn't peed on.

Eh. It's okay. Rick Perry would defend the pee if it happened.

17 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:50:12am

it appears Huntsman has no legs

18 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:50:30am

re: #10 Killgore Trout

At least he wasn't peed on.

Note: pissing on corpses doesn't have anything to do with the corpses -- it degrades the humanity of the people doing the pissing.

19 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:53:06am

re: #1 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seems sort of a waste to me. At this point, Huntsman isn't really running anymore for this year's nomination, just brownie points towards the '16 election.

Yeah, this.

Huntsman committed the ultimate GOP sin of working with Barack Obama. That means he doesn't stand a chance. But he can set himself up for 2016 or whatever now.

20 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:53:47am

re: #16 Lidane

Eh. It's okay. Rick Perry would defend the pee if it happened.

No, dumb was the original incident. Disgraceful and disgusting was filming it and then showing it around like a damned war trophy.

But the Right needs a "Obama hates the troops!" argument, what better way than to portray him as "overreacting" to the desecration of corpses?

21 jaunte  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:54:25am
"...don’t expect him to spout ridiculous superlatives about the existential threat the incumbent poses to our nation; President Obama simply has failed to lead or has led in the wrong direction, he argues.

Why on earth would we want a candidate to say anything worse about his opponent? Explain why he’s wrong, and why you’re right, and let the voters choose."

TheState's editor may be overoptimistic about the moderation of the primary voters.

22 aagcobb  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:55:15am

re: #16 Lidane

Eh. It's okay. Rick Perry would defend the pee if it happened.

I wonder if the UCMJ covers corpse abuse. You can bet Perry wouldn't cut the same slack for soldiers who engaged in sodomy.

23 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:55:28am

I'm amazed that anyone fails to understand this. Yes, corpses don't know they're being pissed on. And yes, they'd probably prefer being pissed on to being dead. But it's not about that.

Desecrating dead bodies is simply a disgusting act, and that's the reason why it's a crime under the Geneva Conventions. Defending any soldier who does it is wrong-headed.

24 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:57:00am

Have they begun court martial proceedings on these troops yet

25 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:58:13am

re: #24 SpaceJesus

Have they begun court martial proceedings on these troops yet

The video only came out this week, there has to be a formal investigation.

26 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:58:19am

re: #23 Charles

I'm amazed that anyone fails to understand this. Yes, corpses don't know they're being pissed on. And yes, they'd probably prefer being pissed on to being dead. But it's not about that.

Desecrating dead bodies is simply a disgusting act, and that's the reason why it's a crime under the Geneva Conventions. Defending any soldier who does it is simply wrong-headed.

True, but for the mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging types on the far right, it's okay to do what these soldiers did because hey, it was just a bunch of dead Muslims. Anyone who criticizes the act of desecrating their corpses clearly loves jihad and hates the troops, don'tcha know. :-P

27 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 10:58:55am

plus the Marine Corps is very serious about honor, discipline and image...their code so to speak...there are unit CO's and up that I'm sure are very agitated

28 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:00:34am

re: #27 albusteve

plus the Marine Corps is very serious about honor, discipline and image...their code so to speak...there are unit CO's and up that I'm sure are very agitated

Wasn't the Marine Corps Commandant one of the men offended by the video? I'd imagine that when the guy at the top of the food chain is angry about what he sees, no one else stands a chance of trying to excuse it away.

29 mikec6666  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:00:39am

Jon Huntsman, brought to you by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

30 jaunte  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:00:42am

re: #22 aagcobb

I wonder if the UCMJ covers corpse abuse. You can bet Perry wouldn't cut the same slack for soldiers who engaged in sodomy.

Article 134:

1) In general. Article 134 makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses not specifically covered in any other article of the code. These are referred to as “clauses 1, 2, and 3” of Article 134. Clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces.
.....
3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). “Discredit” means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.[Link: usmilitary.about.com...]

31 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:03:09am

re: #28 Lidane

Wasn't the Marine Corps Commandant one of the men offended by the video? I'd imagine that when the guy at the top of the food chain is angry about what he sees, no one else stands a chance of trying to excuse it away.

right...these guys are toast, probably cut loose with a dishonorable discharge, that right there is pretty serious

32 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:04:23am

I'm seeing a lot of people wailing that by criticizing the desecration of corpses, we're supposedly handing a "propaganda victory" to the Taliban.

No -- the propaganda victory for the Taliban was the soldiers who desecrated bodies. The way to take this victory away from them is to make it clear that the US military does not condone this ugly behavior.

It's the right wingers who are crowing and advocating this kind of desecration who are really helping the Taliban's propaganda effort.

33 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:07:00am

re: #32 Charles

I'm seeing a lot of people wailing that by criticizing the desecration of corpses, we're supposedly handing a "propaganda victory" to the Taliban.

No -- the propaganda victory for the Taliban was the soldiers who desecrated bodies. The way to take this victory away from them is to make it clear that the US military does not condone this ugly behavior.

It's the right wingers who are crowing and advocating this kind of desecration who are really helping the Taliban's propaganda effort.

Seriously? They think that videos of pissing on corpses rate lower than taking the soldiers pissing on the corpses to task in terms of propaganda?

34 blueraven  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:08:28am

re: #16 Lidane

Eh. It's okay. Rick Perry would defend the pee if it happened.

What happened to the party of personal responsibility?

Give the soldiers a slap on the wrist and fuggetaboutit already!

35 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:12:07am

re: #32 Charles

I cannot believe this discussion on desecration. The RW is bent on taking anything and everything Obama does to task, just on general principles.

36 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:16:43am

re: #23 Charles

I'm amazed that anyone fails to understand this. Yes, corpses don't know they're being pissed on. And yes, they'd probably prefer being pissed on to being dead. But it's not about that.

Desecrating dead bodies is simply a disgusting act, and that's the reason why it's a crime under the Geneva Conventions. Defending any soldier who does it is wrong-headed.

I'm content to let the military handle this. I think they should also look into the leadership too. This could indicate a larger discipline problem.

37 justaminute  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:17:15am

Sometimes I wonder at the defense by the public for the troops that desecrate the dead. What will their reaction be to the troops that are going on trial this week for murder and keeping body parts of their kill?

All it does is just increase the resolve of the Taliban to one up these actions. I hope my son learns a lot in SERE school when he goes next month. I feel for that American soldier in Taliban captivity. If he is still alive.

38 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:17:34am

re: #33 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seriously? They think that videos of pissing on corpses rate lower than taking the soldiers pissing on the corpses to task in terms of propaganda?

This is the latest right wing talking point: denouncing the desecration of corpses makes you anti-America, anti-military, and pro-Taliban.

39 justaminute  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:19:56am

re: #38 Charles

This is the latest right wing talking point: denouncing the desecration of corpses makes you anti-America, anti-military, and pro-Taliban.

Yes, on another board I was questioned of my alligance to the country. Being married to an Iranian American just sealed it.

40 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:21:40am
The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.
-Genghis Khan

Damn... I thought that was Conan the Barbarian.

But even Genghis didn't talk about pissing on corpses.

41 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:21:40am

re: #23 Charles

Desecrating dead bodies is simply a disgusting act, and that's the reason why it's a crime under the Geneva Conventions. Defending any soldier who does it is wrong-headed.

Try explaining that to rwnj sociopaths and psychos, who despise and resent even the living.

42 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:22:05am

re: #38 Charles

This is the latest right wing talking point: denouncing the desecration of corpses makes you anti-America, anti-military, and pro-Taliban.

By about this point, based on everything the Right has deemed "anti-military" when criticized, I get the impression these armchair generals think that the sort of military we need out there would be a modern-day Waffen SS.

43 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:22:06am

Every Patriot knows that those pesky Talibans will be a lot less likely to mess with the USofA if they know that their corpses are gonna get pissed on and posted on the Internet!

44 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:22:18am

I'm glad to see a SC newspaper endorse a man who knows how to work with Democrats. We need more people willing to work with their political rivals.

45 jaunte  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:25:39am

re: #38 Charles

This is the latest right wing talking point: denouncing the desecration of corpses makes you anti-America, anti-military, and pro-Taliban.

My son-in-law is in Afghanistan right now. He and his friends are not happy at all with the prospect of dealing with the blowback from this incident, and find rear-echelon piss-cheerleaders like Breitbart and Loesch supremely disgusting.

46 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:25:59am

re: #38 Charles

This is the latest right wing talking point: denouncing the desecration of corpses makes you anti-America, anti-military, and pro-Taliban.

So the right-wing is pro-Somali then? Isn't that supporting pirates and thus being anti-US Navy?
///

47 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:26:22am

re: #40 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Damn... I thought that was Conan the Barbarian.

But even Genghis didn't talk about pissing on corpses.

"Isn't it pronounced Jenjis?"
~J. Kerry

48 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:29:41am

re: #45 jaunte

My son-in-law is in Afghanistan right now. He and his friends are not happy at all with the prospect of dealing with the blowback from this incident, and find rear-echelon piss-cheerleaders like Breitbart and Loesch supremely disgusting.

Luckily there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of visible outrage over the incedent. It's getting some press attention by Western media but I'm not seeing any indication of mass protests or anything. In context of the big picture this doesn't amount to much. We're dealing with people who are still pissed about the Danish cartoons, they're just about as outraged as they're going to get.

49 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:30:44am

re: #47 _RememberTonyC

I don't know how GK wants it pronounced, so I'm afraid to say it out loud. He'll come and lop off my head!

50 jaunte  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:30:58am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Maybe so. It's hard to tell.

51 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:30:59am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Luckily there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of visible outrage over the incedent. It's getting some press attention by Western media but I'm not seeing any indication of mass protests or anything. In context of the big picture this doesn't amount to much. We're dealing with people who are still pissed about the Danish cartoons, they're just about as outraged as they're going to get.

Every article I've read by "experts" has taken a "wait-and-see" approach, saying that it will take time to work up outrage into riot-levels. Personally don't see it happening, but there it is.

52 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:32:43am

re: #44 _RememberTonyC

I'm glad to see a SC newspaper endorse a man who knows how to work with Democrats. We need more people willing to work with their political rivals.

Too bad the GOP base thinks otherwise. They want red meat. They want candidates that revile Democrats and liberals. They applaud when Newt suggests firing government workers that are liberal, and when Faux News and the talk radio howler monkeys question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees.

53 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:34:28am

re: #49 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I don't know how GK wants it pronounced, so I'm afraid to say it out loud. He'll come and lop off my head!

Kerry was at the Patriots game last night ..... he was sitting in Bob Kraft's suite ... I hope someone was there to explain the sport of football to him.

54 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:34:43am

Brotherhood secretary's remarks on women spark controversy

"when a woman marches to defend her rights, this affronts her dignity."

In December, Egypt witnessed the largest women's march in its history, as 10,000 women marched through central Cairo to protest against soldiers who dragged women by the hair, stomped on them, and stripped one half-naked in the street during a fierce crackdown.

55 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:36:21am

re: #52 Lidane

Too bad the GOP base thinks otherwise. They want red meat. They want candidates that revile Democrats and liberals. They applaud when Newt suggests firing government workers that are liberal, and when Faux News and the talk radio howler monkeys question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees.

The GOP base is much like the DNC base back in '04, convinced that what the country wants and needs is a angry bomb-thrower who will bring a lot of energy to his campaign and knock the incumbent candidate on his ass. They figure that the country's angry, and if they're not angry, then they're not paying attention.

And we all remember where the Dem '04 "angry" candidate ultimately went: absolutely nowhere.

56 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:36:24am

re: #52 Lidane

Too bad the GOP base thinks otherwise. They want red meat. They want candidates that revile Democrats and liberals. They applaud when Newt suggests firing government workers that are liberal, and when Faux News and the talk radio howler monkeys question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees.

Maybe the moderates will eventually drag the GOP kicking and screaming into a more reasonable place ... a Romney win might be a sign of that possibly beginning ....

57 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:36:43am

re: #54 Killgore Trout

Brotherhood secretary's remarks on women spark controversy

He expects the women to henpeck their husbands, brothers and fathers enough so that they will march for them.

58 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:36:53am

re: #51 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Every article I've read by "experts" has taken a "wait-and-see" approach, saying that it will take time to work up outrage into riot-levels. Personally don't see it happening, but there it is.

what goes round comes round...remember the IDF kid that was ripped to pieces by the Palistinians?...the Talis may even feel some sort of perverse brotherhood now...they have done far worse so I don't see any blowback from them, and some senior Tali has stated that the incident will have no effect on current negotiations

59 BongCrodny  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:37:00am

A few years back the Boston Globe reported that the number of people entering the military needing waivers for criminal records had skyrocketed: 7.9% in 2006 to 11.6% in 2007. I haven't seen any recent numbers but I don't know why it would be markedly different.

If you put thugs in uniform, you're going to get thug behavior.

60 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:39:45am

re: #55 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The GOP base is much like the DNC base back in '04, convinced that what the country wants and needs is a angry bomb-thrower who will bring a lot of energy to his campaign and knock the incumbent candidate on his ass. They figure that the country's angry, and if they're not angry, then they're not paying attention.

And we all remember where the Dem '04 "angry" candidate ultimately went: absolutely nowhere.

I thought he went to Wisconsin, then Nebraska, then New Mexico, then
Upper Volta ............ yee hawwwwww

61 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:40:22am

re: #58 albusteve

what goes round comes round...remember the IDF kid that was ripped to pieces by the Palistinians?...the Talis may even feel some sort of perverse brotherhood now...they have done far worse so I don't see any blowback from them, and some senior Tali has stated that the incident will have no effect on current negotiations

Personally think the leadership just wants this whole war over with, while the average man on the street either believes the Taliban full of shit or is so used to the propaganda by now accusing our troops of far worse that pissing on corpses doesn't even cause a flicker on their "rage-o-meter."

62 krypto  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:40:24am

Once the battle between the clown candidates ends with Romney as the GOP candidate, I'm hoping to see the GOP falling on its face over its long-dishonest opposition to the federal health care reform law. They will have to deal with the combination of Romney's accurate claim (contrary to previous GOP propaganda) that the Massachusetts state law is popular and successful, combined with Romney's outright lies that the federal law is different from the MA state law in ways that directly affect those it covers. Democrats up for re-election previously shied away from discussing the HC reform law in their campaigns precisely because there was so much propaganda against it that it was too much for them to take on. That only helped encourage acceptance of the false claims. There is a chance that having it come to the forefront because of Romney's two-faced position on HC reform, depending on whether it's in Massachusetts, might help publicly debunk much of the misinformation.

63 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:40:26am

re: #54 Killgore Trout

Brotherhood secretary's remarks on women spark controversy

Oh, that sounds familiar. Is there some sort of anti-feminist talking points memo that transcends time and space?

64 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:41:42am

re: #55 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The GOP base is much like the DNC base back in '04, convinced that what the country wants and needs is a angry bomb-thrower who will bring a lot of energy to his campaign and knock the incumbent candidate on his ass. They figure that the country's angry, and if they're not angry, then they're not paying attention.

True. That kind of activist anger simply doesn't exist in the larger electorate. It's why the GOP base went for purity and found the one person who could justify Harry Reid winning again, and why Romney is still leading the in the national GOP polls despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the teabaggers and social conservatives.

65 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:42:43am

re: #63 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, that sounds familiar. Is there some sort of anti-feminist talking points memo that transcends time and space?

What? Sorry, I can't hear you from underneath that burka.
/

66 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:44:21am

re: #56 _RememberTonyC

Maybe the moderates will eventually drag the GOP kicking and screaming into a more reasonable place ... a Romney win might be a sign of that possibly beginning ...

Ha! Wishful thinking. The party base is determined to drag this country back to the Dark Ages, Romney win or not. In fact, no matter what happens with Romney, they're going to double down on the fail.

If he gets the nomination, they'll force a wingnut VP on him, like they forced Palin on McCain. If he loses to Obama, they'll say it was because he wasn't a real conservative and was just a RINO. If he wins, they'll say it was because his VP was the real conservative and boosted his credibility, and they'll push for even more atavistic legislation to make up for it.

67 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:46:26am

re: #66 Lidane

Ha! Wishful thinking. The party base is determined to drag this country back to the Dark Ages, Romney win or not. In fact, no matter what happens with Romney, they're going to double down on the fail.

If he gets the nomination, they'll force a wingnut VP on him, like they forced Palin on McCain. If he loses to Obama, they'll say it was because he wasn't a real conservative and was just a RINO. If he wins, they'll say it was because his VP was the real conservative and boosted his credibility, and they'll push for even more atavistic legislation to make up for it.

And it doesn't matter whether he wins or loses if they win big in Congress. He loses, they just spend the next four years remaining deadlocked or sending poisoned bills to him on a regular basis, then trying to make political hay of them when he uses the veto pen. He wins, then he serves as little more than a rubber stamp for them, being seen as a figurehead by the party while the "real work" is done on Capital Hill.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:48:09am

re: #61 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Personally think the leadership just wants this whole war over with, while the average man on the street either believes the Taliban full of shit or is so used to the propaganda by now accusing our troops of far worse that pissing on corpses doesn't even cause a flicker on their "rage-o-meter."

I must assume that we are routinely accused of far worse.

But that ain't the point.

69 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:49:51am

re: #59 BongCrodny

A few years back the Boston Globe reported that the number of people entering the military needing waivers for criminal records had skyrocketed: 7.9% in 2006 to 11.6% in 2007. I haven't seen any recent numbers but I don't know why it would be markedly different.

If you put thugs in uniform, you're going to get thug behavior.

If there any breakdown on the actual charges on those criminal records? Could be stuff like drug charges instead of assault. Thus making the "thugs in uniform" remark a bit misdirected.

70 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:50:09am

re: #66 Lidane

Ha! Wishful thinking. The party base is determined to drag this country back to the Dark Ages, Romney win or not. In fact, no matter what happens with Romney, they're going to double down on the fail.

If he gets the nomination, they'll force a wingnut VP on him, like they forced Palin on McCain. If he loses to Obama, they'll say it was because he wasn't a real conservative and was just a RINO. If he wins, they'll say it was because his VP was the real conservative and boosted his credibility, and they'll push for even more atavistic legislation to make up for it.

Romney will need to "balance" the ticket for sure. All nominees do it. But the VP's effect on policy may be limited. I still feel Romney is more moderate than he is ready to reveal to the masses of primary voters. If he gets the nomination, he will slide back towards the center. And I have little doubt that if he wins the POTUS job, his priority is not going to be social conservative issues. The reason the GOP base mistrusts Romney is well founded: he isn't one of them. But I see that as a good thing. If Obama wants four more years, Mitt will force him to raise his game. None of the others represent any REAL threat in a general election.

71 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:50:58am

re: #32 Charles

I'm seeing a lot of people wailing that by criticizing the desecration of corpses, we're supposedly handing a "propaganda victory" to the Taliban.

No -- the propaganda victory for the Taliban was the soldiers who desecrated bodies. The way to take this victory away from them is to make it clear that the US military does not condone this ugly behavior.

It's the right wingers who are crowing and advocating this kind of desecration who are really helping the Taliban's propaganda effort.

Corpse desecration has always been as much about inducing horror and pain in the living that receive and attend to the corpse as about disrespect and spiritual harm to the dead. That could make the optics of this bad.

If this Taliban tries to market this--and maybe they won't, because their own history with respect for Muslim corpses is less-than-pristine--what they're going to sell it that it's a mockery of the bathing of the dead.

72 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:55:38am

re: #70 _RememberTonyC

Romney will need to "balance" the ticket for sure. All nominees do it. But the VP's effect on policy may be limited. I still feel Romney is more moderate than he is ready to reveal to the masses of primary voters. If he gets the nomination, he will slide back towards the center. And I have little doubt that if he wins the POTUS job, his priority is not going to be social conservative issues. The reason the GOP base mistrusts Romney is well founded: he isn't one of them. But I see that as a good thing. If Obama wants four more years, Mitt will force him to raise his game. None of the others represent any REAL threat in a general election.

He'll try to slide back towards the center, and Obama will pound him every step of the way. Romney's thrown himself right into the thick of the far-right in order to win over a base that hates him more than life itself. When he tries to back that up, trying to "moderate" his campaign, he's going to be treated just as Kerry was, a "flip-flopper" which can't be trusted to declare that the sun rises in the east. Add that to the albatross that is his history at Bain and he's sunk.

73 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 11:56:43am

re: #70 _RememberTonyC

Romney will need to "balance" the ticket for sure. All nominees do it. But the VP's effect on policy may be limited. I still feel Romney is more moderate than he is ready to reveal to the masses of primary voters. If he gets the nomination, he will slide back towards the center. And I have little doubt that if he wins the POTUS job, his priority is not going to be social conservative issues. The reason the GOP base mistrusts Romney is well founded: he isn't one of them. But I see that as a good thing. If Obama wants four more years, Mitt will force him to raise his game. None of the others represent any REAL threat in a general election.

Well...my concern is that Romney as POTUS, whether or not he actually cares about socon issues, would have the power to appease his socon constituents by his choices for judicial appointments.

Activist judges bent upon overturning Roe, eroding the separation of church and state, and "state's rights" could really mess us up.

74 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:07:16pm

re: #72 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Case in point:

Santorum: Romneycare Is A 'Scarlet Letter,' Would Weaken GOP In General Election

That's the general GOP base view. Romney's greatest legislative accomplishment is also his greatest weakness in the party, because Obama used it as a model for his health care plan.

75 albusteve  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:07:24pm

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

76 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:09:41pm

re: #74 Lidane

Case in point:

Santorum: Romneycare Is A 'Scarlet Letter,' Would Weaken GOP In General Election

That's the general GOP base view. Romney's greatest legislative accomplishment is also his greatest weakness in the party, because Obama used it as a model for his health care plan.

Ayep. And Romney's not proposing any real alternative besides a return to the status quo, with his little "firing" statement.

77 Big Joe Ghazi  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:10:38pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

The problem with that idea is the electorate will just vote in worse replacements.

78 William Barnett-Lewis  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:10:52pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

He's a major threat to the American public the day he gets a SCOTUS justice appointment. Another right wing activist like Scalia would be, I believe, devastating to the nation.

79 aagcobb  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:11:15pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

That's what Nader's people said in 2000. It helped give us 8 years of Dubya. It makes a difference who the President is.

80 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:12:34pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

Which is why we need Congressional term limits. But, of course, the only people who could make that a reality are the ones who'd be bound by it. Hence our present dilemma.

81 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:13:02pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

I do not see him as a threat, but if it came down to a choice between him and Obama, I would see him as the weaker of the two candidates, which is the same attitude I had about McCain in 2008.

82 Kragar  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:19:54pm

re: #80 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Which is why we need Congressional term limits. But, of course, the only people who could make that a reality are the ones who'd be bound by it. Hence our present dilemma.

Couldn't States pass a law saying that a person could only serve as Senator or Congressman for 2 consecutive terms or something like that? Then it would be a States Rights issue.

83 kirkspencer  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:20:24pm

re: #70 _RememberTonyC

Romney will need to "balance" the ticket for sure. All nominees do it. But the VP's effect on policy may be limited. I still feel Romney is more moderate than he is ready to reveal to the masses of primary voters. If he gets the nomination, he will slide back towards the center. And I have little doubt that if he wins the POTUS job, his priority is not going to be social conservative issues. The reason the GOP base mistrusts Romney is well founded: he isn't one of them. But I see that as a good thing. If Obama wants four more years, Mitt will force him to raise his game. None of the others represent any REAL threat in a general election.

Romney's biggest problem for the Republicans, summed up in a tagline I saw recently.

Romney: Kerry with an R.

84 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:21:11pm

re: #82 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Good idea but I do not think it will work.

85 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:22:22pm

re: #82 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Couldn't States pass a law saying that a person could only serve as Senator or Congressman for 2 consecutive terms or something like that? Then it would be a States Rights issue.

Doubt it would work, as the only legally binding law I know of concerning Congressional terms is the Constitution. But it would get a lot of folks talking and wondering aloud if it's time to call on Congress to do something more than reelect itself every few years.

86 Kragar  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:22:32pm

re: #84 PhillyPretzel

Good idea but I do not think it will work.

Didn't think so, just throwing out ideas.

87 Kragar  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:24:24pm

re: #85 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Doubt it would work, as the only legally binding law I know of concerning Congressional terms is the Constitution. But it would get a lot of folks talking and wondering aloud if it's time to call on Congress to do something more than reelect itself every few years.

Well, this wouldn't limit the Congressional term. It would say a person couldn't appear on the State ballot after serving twice in a row.

Yeah, it would get taken to court right off the bat, but its an idea.

88 kirkspencer  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:29:10pm

re: #80 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Which is why we need Congressional term limits. But, of course, the only people who could make that a reality are the ones who'd be bound by it. Hence our present dilemma.

See, I actually disagree. I don't think term limits are necessary. Or rather, I think they're the wrong solution to the problem.

89 PhillyPretzel  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:30:12pm

re: #88 kirkspencer
So what would your solution be?

90 Targetpractice  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:30:53pm

re: #87 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, this wouldn't limit the Congressional term. It would say a person couldn't appear on the State ballot after serving twice in a row.

Yeah, it would get taken to court right off the bat, but its an idea.

Hmm, and certainly an interesting one at that. Scanning through the Constitution, there's nothing that specifically bars states from putting restrictions on who may or may not run. It certainly would be an interesting case.

91 Kragar  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:31:34pm

re: #89 PhillyPretzel

So what would your solution be?

Youtube Video
92 Kragar  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:32:13pm

re: #90 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Hmm, and certainly an interesting one at that. Scanning through the Constitution, there's nothing that specifically bars states from putting restrictions on who may or may not run. It certainly would be an interesting case.

Plus, as an added bonus:

STATES RIGHTS!!111!1ELEVENTY!1!

93 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:36:28pm

And I'm back in snowy Russia.

94 kirkspencer  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:44:36pm

re: #88 kirkspencer

Sorry, I should have expanded this.

The first problem with term limits is that it's a baby-and-bathwater solution. The second problem is that it discourages "professionals" from entering, instead getting solely the populists who can both get crowds excited and who don't spend years learning the job. Jump in, whale away for a few years, then leave for the job that actually pays for retirement.

Personally, I'd go harder at the other end. I'd make it easier to challenge the incumbent instead of forcing an incumbent to leave.

1) Fix the gerrymandering. I know, much harder to do than to say, but the twists and turns most states do to ensure their current reps aren't particularly challenged (and if they are, the most likely replacement is of the same party) is problematic.

2) Fix the funding, which is even harder than the gerrymandering. The US Supreme Court decided money == free speech. I'd make the correlation money == votes and so to make everyone's "votes" be close to similar weight.

3) Open the voting even more than it is. Some options include: any-poll voting, where a voter votes wherever it's convenient; multi-day voting (not just the second Tuesday of November); "absentee' ballots sent to all registered voters (see Oregon's system); motor-voter expanded so any government registration automatically (instead of by choice) registers voters.

None of those is perfect. The intent, however, is to not toss the baby with the bathwater.

95 zora  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:45:20pm

re: #83 kirkspencer

Romney's biggest problem for the Republicans, summed up in a tagline I saw recently.

Romney: Kerry with an R.

i've seen romney referred to as albino obama on rw blogs. ha!

96 BenghaziHoops  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:49:41pm

re: #93 Sergey Romanov

And I'm back in snowy Russia.

Back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are ..Boy
Back in the USSR
:)

97 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 12:58:04pm

re: #95 zora

i've seen romney referred to as albino obama on rw blogs. ha!

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...]

As he traveled across South Carolina on Thursday, Mr. Santorum urged voters to dismiss the conventional wisdom that Mitt Romney has an upper hand in the nominating contest. He said the party can win back the White House only by offering a “clear contrast” with President Obama.

“We need contrasts,” Mr. Santorum said, “not just a paler shade of what we have.”

98 Varek Raith  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 1:00:15pm

re: #97 Lidane

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...]

They want to say it so bad.

99 engineer cat  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 1:17:02pm

re: #75 albusteve

who cares who's president?...our brain dead congress is the source of the problem with governing, they don't...we need a new speaker, senate majority leader and 3/4 of the members bounced out...Romney is hardly any threat to anyone

i think there would be a big difference between having obama for another four years and a president romney

don't be fooled by the fact that both parties are corrupt, incompetent, and sold out to wealthy bidders - they are still vastly different

100 aagcobb  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 1:18:09pm

re: #88 kirkspencer

See, I actually disagree. I don't think term limits are necessary. Or rather, I think they're the wrong solution to the problem.

I think the best solution would be to have nonpartisan committees draw up congressional districts with the primary objective of making each district as diverse as possible, rather than creating "safe" districts which make incumbents almost unbeatable.

101 Lidane  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 1:22:03pm

re: #100 aagcobb

Personally, I'd like to see the election laws written to make third parties more viable. If we had more than two political parties in this country that were competitive, things might be different.

102 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Tears  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 1:24:40pm

re: #101 Lidane

Personally, I'd like to see the election laws written to make third parties more viable. If we had more than two political parties in this country that were competitive, things might be different.

At the risk of a really out there fringe party becoming necessary in order to get a majority coalition together to form a government.

103 kirkspencer  Sun, Jan 15, 2012 2:59:45pm

re: #101 Lidane

Personally, I'd like to see the election laws written to make third parties more viable. If we had more than two political parties in this country that were competitive, things might be different.

The clumsy but basic way I'd do that is to remove most if not all the "party benefit" laws.

Examples:

primaries. A party can certainly hold an election to determine which of the candidates should receive its support, even across states. No state should be required or allowed to pay for those elections, though the party(ies) can pay the state to act as its(their) agent.

Ballot access. No party should have automatic ballot access for its candidate(s).

Public funding. No candidates should receive public funding for their primary periods.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 60 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 163 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1