GOP Primary Megathread!

[Razgovory]

Now if people wanted to run around with a Deifenbaker avatar...

Done that.

I think I did that as well for period of time.  I also posted a bunch of Dief v Pearson YTMND I found.  I don't know why I do things.

[Razgovory]

Only those who voted for him like Trudeau.

and maybe Ontarians.

Never was a Doonesbury fan.

[MadImmortalMan]

Lots of Romney ads on the air now. A couple Newt ones, but nowhere near the same amount. I'd rather be a later primary state, frankly.

[sbr]

The Oregon primary is May 15, hopefully this trainwreck will be decided one way or the other by then and I won't have to see any ads.

[Sheilbh]

I've never agreed with a Mark Steyn article so much, but this is very fair:

The Man Who Gave Us Newt
By Mark Steyn

January 22, 2012 6:40 P.M.

The nature of this peculiar primary season — the reason it seems at odds with both the 2009–2010 political narrative and the seriousness of the times — was determined by Mitt Romney. Even if you don't mind Romneycare, or the abortion flip-flop, or any of the rest, there's a more basic problem: He's not a natural campaigner, and on the stump he instinctively recoils from any personal connection with the voters. So, in compensation, he's bought himself a bunch of A-list advisers and a lavish campaign. He is, as he likes to say, the only candidate with experience in the private sector. So he knows better than to throw his money away, right? But that's just what he's doing, in big ways and small.

Small: It's a good idea to get that telegenic gal (daughter-in-law?) to stand behind him during the concession speech, but one of those expensive consultants ought to tell her not to look so bored and glassy-eyed as the stiff guy grinds through the same-old-same-old for the umpteenth time. To those watching on TV last night, she looked like we felt.

Big: Why is the stump speech so awful? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." Mitt paid some guy to write this insipid pap. And he paid others to approve it. Not only is it bland and generic, it's lethal to him in a way that it wouldn't be to Gingrich or Perry or Bachmann or Paul because it plays to his caricature — as a synthetic, stage-managed hollow man of no fixed beliefs. And, when Ron Paul's going on about "fiat money" and Newt's brimming with specifics on everything (he was great on the pipeline last night), Mitt's generalities are awfully condescending: The finely calibrated inoffensiveness is kind of offensive.

And what's with the wind up? The "shining city on the hill"? That's another guy's line — a guy with whom you have had hitherto little connection other than your public repudiation of him back in the Nineties. Can't any of his highly paid honchos write him a campaign slogan that's his own and doesn't sound in his mouth so cheesily anodyne, as if some guy ran a focus-group and this phrase came up with the lowest negatives?

And where, among all the dough he's handing out, is the rapid-response team? Newt's "spontaneous" indignation at John King was carefully crafted by Gingrich himself. By contrast, Mitt has a ton of consultants, and not one of them thought he needed a credible answer on Bain or taxes? For a guy running as a chief exec applying proven private-sector solutions, his campaign looks awfully like an unreformable government bureaucracy: big, bloated, overstaffed, burning money, slow to react, and all but impossible to change.

Mitt's strategy for 2012 as for 2008 was to sit on his lead and run out the clock: Four years ago, that strategy died in New Hampshire; this time round it died one state later. Congratulations! Years ago, I was chit-chatting with Arthur Laurents, the writer of West Side Story and The Way We Were and much else, about some show that was in trouble on the road that he'd been called in to "fix." "The trouble with a bad show," he sighed, "is that you can make it better but you can never make it good." The Romney candidacy is better than it was four years ago, but it's not clear that it's good. Mitt needs to get good real fast: A real speech, real plan, real responses, and real fire in the belly. Does he have it in him? 

If I were a member of the Republican elite (which I'm not) I'd wonder if we can draft Daniels (or Bush, or Ryan, or anyone); if not push it to a brokered convention and try and fix it; or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.

[Ideologue]

I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.

Really?  There's no way this isn't made up.

[DGuller]

I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.

Really?  There's no way this isn't made up.

Agreed, it sounds made up.  Mitt Romney isn't capable of emotions like love.

[MadImmortalMan]

I have noticed that Romney doesn't come across as comfortable with the campaigning part of campaigning. I mean, when he's asked a question about the economy or whatever, he bites right in. But when he's got to attack his opponent or criticize others he seems stilted and falls flat. It just isn't his thing. Newt is way more natural, and obviously the better debater.

[Razgovory]

It's odd.  I don't really care for Romney much at all (less so then for say Gingrich or Santorum), but still think he would make an adequate President.  I don't think the other three could do so.  I suppose two faced opportunism can actually be useful in governing.

[Phillip V]

It's odd.  I don't really care for Romney much at all (less so then for say Gingrich or Santorum), but still think he would make an adequate President.  I don't think the other three could do so.  I suppose two faced opportunism can actually be useful in governing.

Romney strikes me as an excellent manager, just like Obama is an adequate manager. I just find the latter lacking/wrong in leadership (direction, priorities, etc.), and we are not so sure about Romney's leadership. But Romney does have the benefit of having a clean slate.

For example on Obama, the war in Afghanistan has been adequately managed. No disaster. No victory. The timetable for escalation and withdrawal is sensible and politically palatable. However, the whole venture seems ultimately doomed. No matter trying to be moderate, the work is being done on bad fundamentals such as an illiterate society and a horrible Afghan president. We really do not hear a clear end-goal in this decade-long invasion. Thus, a leader might instead decide to go "all in" and commit to decades of security and nation-building. Or he/she might decide on an almost full withdrawal, cutting losses and recognizing the futility.

[Viking]

I have to say that all these republican debates have resulted in a more european style electoral campaign. In most mid size and smaller european countries the campaign is carried on free to air tv where the networks host debates and discussions on the topics. Some countries permit party political broadcasts that network tv is made to carry and political TV and Radio adds are banned.

I don't think the Republican base has the experience to deal with demagogic minority party (3-5%) candidates that appeal to populist attitudes. Europeans can deal with that, though I suspect that Europeans would be completely bewildered by political (and medical for that matter) ads.

[garbon]

Have we talked about Newt's Moon base?

[stjaba]

I just sent my absentee ballot in the mail 

Since I'm indifferent as to Romney and Gingrich(as a probable Obama voter), I ended up voting for Newt Gingrich, on the theory that I would prefer a prolonged nomination fight, with the (highly unlikely) possibility of a new candidate(Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush?) being selected the convention due to a deadlock. There's a decent chance I would vote for Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush over Obama.

I realize the odds of another candidate coming in are extremely low, but I figured it was better than wasting my ballot all together. Based on the polls, it seems likely that Romney is going to win Florida. Gingrich was leading a bunch of polls that were conducted right before and during the South Carolina primary, but since then Romney has been leading.

[Jacob]

Apparently Bob Dole doesn't like Newt much: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289360/dole-goes-nuclear-nro-staff

Meanwhile, Santorum apparently encourages people to stop giving money to universities and colleges, as they "are undermining the very principles of our country every single day." I sure hope that Santorum quote is mostly spin and fabrication, because otherwise it's pretty fucking terrible.

[derspiess]

I've never agreed with a Mark Steyn article so much, but this is very fair:

Steyn is hilarious, once you get past the fact that he's Canadian but has a British-sounding accent.

If I were a member of the Republican elite (which I'm not) I'd wonder if we can draft Daniels (or Bush, or Ryan, or anyone); if not push it to a brokered convention and try and fix it; or push Santorum who, if nothing else, is safe and predictable.

Meh, it's Mitt's turn.  Just like McCain & Dole had their turns.  The GOP elite seems to favor the guy whose turn it is.

I'll still be okay with Mitt getting the nom.  I don't want Gingrich, and I really, really don't want Santorum.  But yeah, Daniels would be my dream candidate at this point.