by Ugh
And so it begins. Predictions? Thoughts? Winners/losers? Will Donald's hairpiece walk off the stage? Who will make the most outrageous statement? Who helped most/least?
My prediction: Mr. Trump "wins" hands down. Jeb Bush's popularity goes down. Scott Walker will say the most insane thing and his popularity will soar because of it.
Anyway, enjoy the show! Open Thread.
Or both!
Posted by: Ugh | August 06, 2015 at 12:52 PM
it's going to be 10 guys trying to spit out snippets of their stump speeches before the timer runs out.
it will be the most boring TV ever.
Posted by: cleek | August 06, 2015 at 12:56 PM
It will be a shoutfest between Trump and Christie, to see who can most blatantly violate the debate rules: running over, talking over the other candidates, making personal attacks.
NY vs NJ, if you will. Ya gotta problem wi' that?
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 06, 2015 at 01:33 PM
or maybe Trump and Jeb! will rain blows upon each other!
Posted by: cleek | August 06, 2015 at 01:39 PM
I'm hoping that, with the resumption of diplomatic relations between the USA and Cuba, Fidel Castro sneaks into the studio audience just so he can give a shout-out to Cruz and Rubio.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 06, 2015 at 01:56 PM
At some point, Trump is gonna have to tell somebody that they are fired.
Posted by: russell | August 06, 2015 at 01:56 PM
The CNN article linked to above:
Donald Trump loves the spotlight and the camera.
But when he takes center stage Thursday night, it won't be as the star of a reality TV show -- it will be as the Republican Party's front-runner presidential candidate.
But isn't this very much a reality TV show?
Posted by: wj | August 06, 2015 at 02:01 PM
The other thing that is bound to happen:
At some point, John Kasich will speak, and the other candidates will turn, look at him, and ask in unison, "Who is that guy?"
Posted by: russell | August 06, 2015 at 02:04 PM
And, for your viewing pleasure, "Rare" (whatever that is) offers an occasion-specific drinking game.
Posted by: dr ngo | August 06, 2015 at 02:23 PM
I was going to say "You couldn't pay me enough to watch," but on reflection, that's not true. I'm sure someone could pay me enough to watch. I'm just not sure (1) who that "someone" might be; and (2) how much is "enough."
Posted by: dr ngo | August 06, 2015 at 02:25 PM
talking about money I found this map to be interesting.
https://cmdi.com/2015/07/the-state-battle-for-campaign-cash/
Posted by: jeff | August 06, 2015 at 02:43 PM
The Economist has a lovely blog post
www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/daily-chart-0
which includes a column giving the question that each candidate would love to be asked, and the one each candidate would hate to be asked. Fun!
Posted by: wj | August 06, 2015 at 02:47 PM
I shall play this drinking game
http://rare.us/story/heres-the-official-rare-drinking-game-for-the-first-republican-presidential-debate/
Posted by: jeff | August 06, 2015 at 02:49 PM
Jeff, wouldn't it be simpler to just get passing-out drunk before the debate starts? That way, you wouldn't have to keep track of what comments warranted another dring....
Posted by: wj | August 06, 2015 at 05:09 PM
Simpler, or more pleasant?
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 06, 2015 at 05:32 PM
I no longer drink anything harder than hard cider, yet I still have little expectation of making it past the halftime commercial break before I start snoozing
Posted by: jeff | August 06, 2015 at 05:47 PM
Jessica Williams on Jon Stewart last night re-interviewed some infamous characters from previous shows, who take themselves ever-so seriously, as only a set of creatures can who have been embraced as the basest of the base voter by the republican party over the years, which itself has transformed politics in this country from only slightly cockamamie to utterly full of sh*t in a little less than a generation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-proves-interviews-were-real_55c1fbbbe4b0f7f0bebaf11e
My prediction for the debate tonight, which I won't be watching, because I've already made-it-up, is that the ten creme de la creme of conservative sadism, stupidity and terminal penis envy putinization will as one raise their water glasses to wet their whistles as the FOX debate moderators (enablers?) ask whether each of them believe the black conservative pastor's theory (upchucked very near the close of the interviews in the clip above) regarding the ingredients of Starbuck's lattes might be accurate.
The ten malignant, mal-adjusted malificients will, in unison, perform a ten-man spittake, spraying the stage and the onlookers three rows back, before getting their wits about them, adjusting their ties, and answering with an eye to not offending (always politically correct little sh*ts) the base voter who believes this kind of stuff and who might prevent the candidate who doesn't dignify the question from making the scum-line cut for the next round of debates.
Another prediction: with Steve Colbert, Stewart, and Key and Peele now removed from providing a satirical cushion to kind of mediate these types of views so invigorating to the conservative base in this country with laughter, I predict the black pastor, the gun nut, and others of this ilk will run for republican office in, maybe in 2016, but surely in the 2018 midterms, and some will win and take office to "govern" us, their shirts off and their weapons unholstered, bacon sizzling on the red-hot barrel.
A couple of the clowns in the clip would not look out of place among the ten going at it tonight.
They'd be huge and surge in tomorrow's polls.
I, as a passive participant, as a so-called exceptional American, complicit in this colossal, seriously malignant display of malevolence, am a disgrace for witnessing these ten f*cks compete to tell us, with vicious glee, how they are going to f*ck and hate great numbers of their fellow Americans and our institutions, and for not converging on tonight's venue and burning it down, which I think Benjamin Franklin, by now, would approve of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI
Posted by: Countme-In | August 06, 2015 at 07:01 PM
As a good Democrat, I have rounded up 40 GOP primary votes, so I have to watch. I'm leaning toward "write-in candidate".
Shots and beers all lined up ready to go.
Posted by: bobbyp | August 06, 2015 at 07:03 PM
WRT drinking games tonight, a satirical website provides what is actually a fairly sensible warning.
Posted by: dr ngo | August 06, 2015 at 07:06 PM
I met my first Trump supporter in the flesh last night, an otherwise reasonable-seeming 30-year old woman. A friend continued engaging with her, but I eased away from the bar to avoid blurting out something that might be mean-spirited.
Posted by: Priest | August 06, 2015 at 07:10 PM
they finally asked Carson a question!
Posted by: bobbyp | August 06, 2015 at 09:50 PM
Carson: If torture takes place and nobody knows about it, who cares?
fuckin' presidential if you ask me!
Shot. Beer.
Posted by: bobbyp | August 06, 2015 at 09:51 PM
You guys ruin drinking with this shallow expression of fascism?
I'm going to listen to some Jeff Beck.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 07, 2015 at 12:29 AM
I keep seeing comments that Fiorina was the run-away winner of the pre-debate. Which says something, and not something good, about the rest of the candidates there.
As anybody who watched her campaign for the Senate in California will be aware, she would be a disasterous candidate. I mean, you have to be pretty bad to run as a moderate and still lose to Barbara Boxer.
Admittedly, part of that could be the number of people in California who were aware of just how badly she trashed Hewlett Packard while she was CEO there. HP is still trying to recover. But the rest of the country might manage to avoid becoming aware of that.
Posted by: wj | August 07, 2015 at 12:55 AM
(OT, but not entirely so.)
This is interesting:
http://chronicle.com/article/Black-Silent-Majority/231983/
I remember TNC reviewing Michelle Alexander's book and not being entirely convinced by it. Might precipitate an enlightening debate - though it could equally devolve into an argument between those who believe US mass incarceration is acceptable and those who are (IMO opinion rightly) appalled by it.
Posted by: Nigel | August 07, 2015 at 06:33 AM
wj: those who appreciated HP's line of high-quality test equipment will NEVER forgive Fiorina.
Plenty of those folks in the Bay area, but also worldwide.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 07, 2015 at 08:22 AM
I didn't watch the debate; I watched the reaction to the debate.
Establishment types seem to rate Kasich and Rubio as the winners. Nobody gives a damn, because the big story is that nothing happened to take out Trump and he seems to have emerged stronger. And the other big story is Jeb Bush: Loser.
Posted by: Matt McIrvin | August 07, 2015 at 09:05 AM
The only thing worse than being caught up in a Clownfight? LOSING the Clownfight.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 07, 2015 at 10:04 AM
Well, judging by the reaction of my legion of FB friends, Trump's style resonates with politically unsophisticated people who are not issue-oriented when it comes to voting, even if they have a weak party affiliation with the Democrats. The idea that a businessman can run government will seems to have taken hold. Plus there are many Americans who like a candidate who speaks forthrightly and assertively, even if they have no understanding of what the candidate said.
I don't think Trump is a viable candidate in the national elections because I don't think he will wear well, but I do think he could poll well outside the R base for a while at least.
Posted by: wonkie | August 07, 2015 at 10:22 AM
I like Josh Marshall's debate summary:
Foxbots to Trump: Are you not a fraud, a cretin and a scoundrel.
Trump: I'm very rich. Fuck yourself. I have no time for your nonsense.
Crowd: Cheers wildly.
Posted by: Ugh | August 07, 2015 at 11:12 AM
last i checked, RedState seemed convinced that Fiorina and Rubio won and that Megyn Kelly is a "far left" "feminazi".
Posted by: cleek | August 07, 2015 at 11:15 AM
The idea that a businessman can run government will seems to have taken hold.
This has been a major theme in US politics for a long time now. It was most of the appeal of H. Ross Perot: one of his applause lines was "let's run this country like a business", and he had the homespun tell-it-like-it-is persona that convinced people he wasn't some slick charlatan. It wasn't enough for him to actually get any electoral votes, but he was a major figure in the election. Steve Forbes was another one.
More recently, both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney ran to some degree on the notion that they were successful in business, and that success would somehow transfer to running the country (though they had both been state governors as well).
Posted by: Matt McIrvin | August 07, 2015 at 02:07 PM
My wife made me watch it. Damn glad.
Fox was terrific. Would that the MSM would grill candidates like that.
Scott Walker looks like a leering or lusting or smirking Chris Parnell (SNL), depending on the moment. No abortion to save the mother's life? Game over and adios.
The left discounts/minimized Carly F at its peril. I've been following her closely for some months. Very savvy, specific and substantive. She would fry HRC in a one-on-one debate.
Trump's 'in your face' style is much more engaging than either my wife or I thought it would be. He didn't try to parse anything, took all the hits and didn't flinch. Like him or not, he came to play.
Cruz--F**k Me--we have friends who think he hung the moon. The wifey and I are mystified. What a sanctimonious turd.
Kacisch or whatever, not bad.
Christie, much better than I expected.
Rand Paul, see Cruz except I don't know anyone who likes him.
Huckabee--stayed away from Jesus, dodged a bullet.
Rubio--If they ever do a Third Best Marigold Hotel, he has a good shot at a supporting role.
Bush--bland.
Carson--nice guy, kind of detached. Made some interesting points.
No face licking here. Will the left call its own out?
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | August 07, 2015 at 02:15 PM
both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney ran to some degree on the notion that they were successful in business
Which is kind of mystifying. Romney was certainly a success in business. But Bush? If memory serves, the businesses he ran all lost money. Or made it only with massive government subsidies.
But then, that apparently didn't count against him with voters. Which may mean that Fiorina, in spite of her horrid track record in business, has a better chance than I would like to think. (Assuming her apparent performance this time gets her a seat at the head table next time.)
Posted by: wj | August 07, 2015 at 02:39 PM
"Will the left call its own out?"
John C. Calhoun still hasn't been punished and it's high time.
Woodrow Wilson, I would avoid.
If Chuck Schumer keeled over today, I'd count it as a plus for the country.
Al Gore was a complete d*ck during the 2000 debates and I blame him in no small part for the travails of the following eight years.
Not a Hillary fan.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 07, 2015 at 04:21 PM
The left discounts/minimized Carly F at its peril. I've been following her closely for some months. Very savvy, specific and substantive. She would fry HRC in a one-on-one debate.
Uh-huh. That's why she beat Barbara Boxer into the ground for Senate, right?
What's her constituency again? People who love CEO's that killed major American tech companies through sheer incompetence? Americans who love someone who didn't even come close the one time she ran for public office? BIG voting blocks there.
I'm sure HRC is trembling.
Posted by: Morat20 | August 07, 2015 at 05:03 PM
I've just watched Jon Stewart's last Daily Show, and I'm just incredibly bummed out. I guess there must be plenty of decent, liberal-but-trying to be objective, perceptive voices out there who can (mixed metaphor alert) cast a cold eye on US current events, but who has such reach, and can do it with such charm and humour? My favourite of his pieces, and so typical, was when he showed a clip of Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 race sucking up to some rural, conservative community by going on and on about how they were "the real America", and Jon Stewart remarked to camera something along the lines "Oh my god, I feel so sorry for the terrorists, how are they going to feel when they realise they bombed the wrong, the fake America". (By the way, I assume the Palin fiasco is the reason Megyn Kelly went hard at Trump - Roger Ailes must realise by now how much damage Fox's love affair with Palin and then the Tea Party has done the Republicans).
Stewart will definitely be missed big time during this coming election period, and even my appetite for watching the debate (normally something I do voraciously) has taken a major hit. I'm tempted to assume Trump will implode (a given one might once have said, but I'm not sure you can make such comforting assumptions since the presidency of George W Bush), but even if he does the situation seems deeply depressing. Damn.
Posted by: Girl from the North Country | August 07, 2015 at 07:45 PM
"Will the left call its own out?"
Bernie needs a haircut very badly. Or at least a comb.
Posted by: russell | August 07, 2015 at 08:58 PM
This should give him a boost in the polls among the pigf*cking vermin now ascendant in the base of the Putin infestation THING that calls itself Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/08/07/a-new-low-for-trump/
Menstruation?
He's obviously got Hillary by the balls.
Maybe Fiorini will give him a tongue lashing and then name him her running mate in 2016, to attract the vermin base to go along with the failed option-rich CEO pigf*cks.
I predict Archie Bunker's "menstrual show" before all is said and done, and all will be said and done from now until 2016.
Are you sure you want to arm the population?
Posted by: Countme-In | August 07, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Much as I find her views reprehensible, here's a shout-out to Megyn Kelly for confronting this breed of machismo pig-f*cking male so ascendant in the shirtless, Putin-loving Republican Party.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/31/foxs-megyn-kelly-tears-into-fox-colleagues-over/194296
These guys accuse liberals of political correctness when it comes to gender and race, but then when called on their too frequent racist and misogynist mouth puke, they whine about how their words were "badly phrased" or "taken out of context".
Erickson the pussy-whipped Aryan pigf*cking cracker.
In other words, they expect others to exercise politically correct restraint and "understand" that they have the right to swing their tiny dicks/or weaponry around without being called on it.
In any other venue, on the street, in a bar, at a sporting event, if these guys spoke to and about women in this manner, they would risk a fist fight that could move to sharp objects very quickly and thrown chairs, to their detriment.
This liberal believes in hurting these filth physically.
Down for the count, with major bone structures in the face crushed.
When they heal (heel), they can kiss my politically correct a*s.
It's the only way the Republican Party is going to learn.
I'm so politically incorrect that the next time Kelly herself launches into some of her reprehensible coverage of blacks being brutalized by police, I wouldn't mind clocking her in the jaw as well.
See, Trump is the essence of the modern Republican Party.
He gives Nazis a reason to feel good about their goose stepping after all these decades of being victimized at the hands of politically correct liberals like Mel Brooks and John Cleese.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 02:21 PM
Starting to regret the monster and the mess they helped create, I guess:
http://shorensteincenter.org/conservative-media-influence-on-republican-party-jackie-calmes/
I'm for letting the monster eat as many Republicans as possible, and then when it tries to eat the country, shoot it in the head with a tactical nuclear weapon.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 04:49 PM
I agree with Huckabee that the Koch Brothers, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush need to pay more into Social Security:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/huckabee-pimps-prostitutes-illegals-social-security
Lift the cap.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 04:59 PM
i loved Huck's mention of pimps and prostitutes. it was so out of the blue and irrelevant, but it really shined a light on where his mind is at.
Posted by: cleek | August 08, 2015 at 05:27 PM
Erickson' acolytes, usually assured of a place snug up against his butt in case there might be a chance of of giving him a rimjob, are a little steamed at his "politically correct" handling of the affaire de Trump.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/conservatives-grapple-with-surprise-trump-snub/?hpid=z2
Trump and Erickson are made for each other, and I wouldn't insult women by suggesting that the twins spent any time in a mother's womb.
Erickson, and Moe Lane, feed swill to these pigf*ckers all these years, and now have the nerve to take away the Trump punch bowl they've been taught to develop a taste for over at BiteState, just when the frozen turds start to surface.
Trump and Erickson were gestated by the Republican Party who preceded them and have played nursemaid to their most vermin instincts these many years.
Daddy and Mummy Gingrich should be very proud.
Yeah and I'll be fascinated to hear Ann Coulter's next crack about Trump's invocation of Megan Kelly's monthly mood swings.
It could go either way, as Coulter ponders whether she can be politically correct at this late date in the history of America.
Unless I've missed something, it's very strange that Coulter has been so quiet about this thus far.
You'd think that insulting Kelly's politically correct questioning of Trump, et al, while cramping, would be red meat for the Coulter sewage salad shooter she calls a mouth.
See, the Founders, those superlative seers held in such esteem, saw these types of damaging personalities emerging in U.S. politics, which is why the Second Amendment contains two commas, one in the book depository and one on the grassy knoll.
Still, Bush is the professional sociopath who should be feared.
The others are amateurs, made men and one woman, but suitable only as muscle when the trouble starts and the earnest business of non-governing gets underway.
Trump reminds Jeb Bush of Barack Obama.
Right.
Who made that up for him, Terri Schiavo, who he has apparently hired to guide his campaign strategies with sightless glances to the corners of the ceiling, because there is obviously a there there.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 06:55 PM
I understand the hand-picked FOX crowd cheered Trump's insults and comebacks at Kelly.
That's an interesting Madame Defarge dynamic, like the cackle Robespierre's head was awarded when it hit the basket, for all of his troubles.
The mob seems to have a mind of its own. Whooda thunk?
Ya fluff a crowd like that for long enough and they aren't satisfied with a just a little blood.
They'll want great spurting geysers of it if they don't have their way.
I suspect Murdoch is summoning Ailes to get his fat, waddling, fascist ass up to the Chairman of the Board suite, pronto, and explain WTF.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 07:07 PM
"Trump and Erickson were gestated by the Republican Party who preceded them and have played nursemaid to their most vermin instincts these many years."
Agreed in all respects, and it applies to many more of these unspeakable creeps in addition. But it looks as if I was completely wrong about Roger Ailes authorising an attack on Trump:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/on-trump-murdoch-has-lost-control-of-ailes-fox.html
It was widely reported that in retrospect Ailes understood the harm caused to the Republican/right wing cause by Palin, but it looks like he hasn't made the connection. I must say, you know things have come to a pretty pass when Rupert Murdoch, fons et origo of so much of the coarsening and debasement of British (and American?) culture, is trying to exercise a moderating hand.
Posted by: Girl from the North Country | August 08, 2015 at 07:08 PM
I don't agree with this:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/donald-trump-has-finally-catapulted-us-alternate-universe
Trump says what he says, which he said the other day. And what he says is what the hateful, poisonous right wing has been saying for 40 years.
Only, he's pithier. Sound bitier.
That Roger Stone, Erickson, Ailes, Murdoch and company have been have been wrapping their vile, malignant hatred in unsellable turgidity these many years is a failure only in the sense that early primitive airplanes that went off the cliff without gaining airspeed were failures.
Trump is the Wright Brothers of violent rhetoric. He's huge, he soars.
He's on the right-wing message.
They'll get on board as co-pilots at some point.
He's the perfect expression of the insane, murderous clown posse they've been deputizing since Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 08, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Except Stone just left the Trump 'campaign'.
My own view is that the contest is between Bush and Fiorina. Much as Trump (or Cruz) might speak to the Staters' political id, they are not entirely without a sense of which candidates can plausibly be presented to the electorate.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/09/republican-candidates-struggle-to-duck-donald-at-redstate-gathering
Posted by: Nigel | August 09, 2015 at 03:26 AM
Erickson, Stone, even the Right has limits. Ai know lots of people who still kind of hold their nose and keep trying to like Trump. Bit they wont much longer. Kasich wins. Rubio is VP, they win 45 states over Sanders.
Posted by: Marty | August 09, 2015 at 07:45 AM
Trump says out loud what other Republican politicians mean, but don't want to say to clearly.
Trump scares people in the Republican party leadership, not because they disagree with his message, but because they fear that his blatancy won't play well in a national election.
They want a politicians who believes what rump believes but is more tactful about it.
It's the difference between open carry and concealed weapon. In all cases the Republicans are out to destroy representative democracy and everyone who isn't part of the elite. The challenge is to appeal to the worst in voters to get them to vote against their own interests without being so open with the nastiness as to turn people off.
Posted by: wonkie | August 09, 2015 at 07:45 AM
I see Sanders winning the Dem primary and naming Trump as his running mate.
On the day before the general election, Sanders will stump wearing Trump's rug and his codpiece and they'll take it by a hair, which will be challenged in the courts as synthetic.
There will a rash of suicides among hair stylists around the country immediately after, but then things will settle down as Sanders names Trump's spare hairpiece as Secretary of State, which Vlad Putin will take as a provocation to begin massing troops and missiles along Russia's western border.
Republicans, for their part, the men AND the women, will appear shirtless in TV spots financed by the Koch Brothers to show their solidarity with Putin in deposing the socialist in the White House.
Ann Coulter's pecs, tattooed with the Stars and Bars and displayed as she lies on the pelt of a black-maned African lion (with Ted Nugent jacking off into a church offering plate to the rhythm of "Cat Scratch Fever" in the background) will be larger than any of the men's, except for Chris Christie's, which will be held up, defying gravity, by scaffolding and traffic cones from the George Washington bridge scandal.
THAT will trigger Erickson's and Stone's limit and they'll fall in love and retire to run a sordid little pay-by-the-hour motel, with gun range and lawn jockies, on the outskirts of Macon, Georgia.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 09, 2015 at 08:47 AM
Belongs in the other thread, perhaps, but a conservative at the NYT is saddened by liberal condescension towards torture apologists--
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html?ref=opinion
Posted by: Donald Johnson | August 09, 2015 at 08:48 AM
I note this, from the article:
"Mr. Yoo had served in Mr. Bush’s Justice Department and had drafted memos laying out what techniques could and couldn’t be used to interrogate Al Qaeda detainees. Mr. Stewart seemed to go into the interview expecting a menacing Clint Eastwood type, who was fully prepared to zap the genitals of some terrorist if that’s what it took to protect America’s women and children.
Mr. Stewart was caught unaware by the quiet, reasonable Mr. Yoo, who explained that he had been asked to determine what legally constituted torture so the government could safely stay on this side of the line. The issue, in other words, wasn’t whether torture was justified but what constituted it and what didn’t. Ask yourself how intellectually curious Mr. Stewart really could be, not to know that this is what Bush administration officials had been saying all along?"
I think Hannah Arendt explained the banality of bland bureaucratic functionaries and their strict attention to convenient, smoothly-running train schedules.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 09, 2015 at 09:07 AM
Does this count as calling out their own:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+sanders+booed+off+stage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I hope Black Lives Matter become a little more bi-partisan in shutting down political rallies, but I like that they are taking on progressives who live in cities with brutalizing police forces.
The Democratic Party should stop taking its black voters for granted.
See, if they tried to shut down a Republican fete, they'd get a demonstration of gunfire and police brutality to go right on film.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 09, 2015 at 10:16 AM
Maybe the Pope should speak from inside the bullet-proof glass Popemobilebubble.
Will the violent, armed Protestants in the pigHouse aim to cane him like a Yankee?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/in_the_presence_of_my_enemies057004.php
Posted by: Countme-In | August 09, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Of course, he will probably address abortion as well, in which case I recommend the double paned Pope bubble.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 09, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Nigel: My own view is that the contest is between Bush and Fiorina. Much as Trump (or Cruz) might speak to the Staters' political id, they are not entirely without a sense of which candidates can plausibly be presented to the electorate.
I just can't see Fiorina getting that far. Yes, she did well in the pre-debate last week. But once she gets up where the other candidates take notice, she will face the reality that her track record in business is terrible, and her track record in electoral politics is, too.
If the GOP wants someone who can "plausible be presented to the (general) electorate," and who isn't named Bush, Kasich is a far better bet.
Posted by: wj | August 09, 2015 at 01:28 PM
Kasich? yeah right.
1. believes climate change is real.
2. supports Common Core.
3. wants to allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the US
4. is OK with gay marriage.
5. allows for life-of-mother exception for abortion
6. wants to put US troops in Iraq to fight ISIS
Posted by: cleek | August 09, 2015 at 01:57 PM
Hey, I didn't say he was a great candidate. Except compared to most of the others on offer -- as your examples make clear.
Posted by: wj | August 09, 2015 at 02:05 PM
he's better than most from a Democratic/Rockfeller Republican perspective. but he's fighting in today's GOP, which has no use for moderation of any kind.
Posted by: cleek | August 09, 2015 at 02:49 PM
her track record in business / politics is terrible...
She came away from HP somewhere around $100m richer, as think. Isn't that what counts amongst this particular electorate ?
Also doesn't come across as blatantly batshit crazy, which sets her apart from quite a lot of the competition.
I don't think competence is a particularly important metric here ?
Posted by: Nigel | August 09, 2015 at 04:46 PM
as think
= I think.
Still can't type on an iPad...
Posted by: Nigel | August 09, 2015 at 04:48 PM
I swear I've been to some Performance Art featuring a Dumpster Fire.
Posted by: MobiusKlein | August 09, 2015 at 07:08 PM
they'll fall in love and retire to run a sordid little pay-by-the-hour motel, with gun range and lawn jockies, on the outskirts of Macon, Georgia.
Two more working Americans! If I could only find a well situated 14 room motel.
Posted by: Marty | August 10, 2015 at 08:09 AM
The Count's performance art aside, this is the most astonishingly crazy thing I have read in OW comments in recent memory.
Props.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 10, 2015 at 09:17 AM
Maybe the count has adopted an alias...?
Posted by: wj | August 10, 2015 at 11:14 AM
It's possible we're seeing the flipside of the Jade Helm disease.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM
I don't know, I thought cleek's recital of Kasich's moderate bonafides was kind of astonishing.
Global warming for one:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/in_the_presence_of_my_enemies057004.php
I suppose if you lean way out the Overton Window for a view these a days, there is only one way to look any longer -- to the Left -- since there is nothing but gravitational black hole to the Right, and yeah, I suppose if you look straight ahead, there stands Kasich, Tea Party darling when elected Ohio Governor and Bill O'Reilly's favorite pinch hitter.
Back in the 1990s, whenever Gingrich, Armey, and Delay gathered for a photo-op, there stood Kasich giving the three of them a reach-around.
And, yes, I think if a Constitutional Amendment was brought to a vote to restrict the voting franchise to those who own property and any number of other "qualifications", such as disallowing those receiving welfare, food stamps, and Obama subsidies from voting, you'd probably get close to 40% voting in favor, and I know who those 40% would be and so would everyone else, even if we were feigning astonishment like the last blushing bride in the country learning what happens on the honeymoon.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM
Well, GOPsters are quite open about being for the lowest election turnout possible. Some say, they only want 'engaged, informed' voters, others are honest enough to say that low turnout = GOP win, high turnout = Dem win => low turnout favors them. I also distinctly remember calls for an end to universal suffrage and for a return to a modernized version of the original US voting system (and who will be the landed gentry of today, I wonder?).
As I have stated numerous times here: The US show unpleasant similarities to the late Roman republic with the GOP as the Optimates and the Dems as the Populares. The only thing yet missing are Caesar and Pompeius (while there are enough Crassus candidates already).
Posted by: Hartmut | August 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM
By the way, Fiorina and Rubio joined the Erickson bukkakefest the other day and agreed they were ready for a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood.
Ready to govern, she is, hanh?
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM
No, what you are observing are antibodies forming in the body politic to fight the Jade Helm disease.
Sometimes a fever forms in response to disease, but maybe it will help burn the disease out of the system, unless the patient dies.
Jade Helm disease beings one of a myriad of related auto-immune diseases whose symptoms have presented themselves in the political base and been encouraged by one particular political party these last few decades.
The source may be a prion savaging the brain tissue, which, as Dr. Casey Stengel might tell you, "leads to peculiarities of the mind".
I lean to a genetic predisposition myself, but when I lean too far, I tend to fall over.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 12:52 PM
Jade Helm Disease, much like Ebola, was bad enough when observed in remote locations among the lower species --- bats, monkeys, moss-backed flibberty-gibbits in Texas.
But when the symptoms begin showing up in Governor's Mansions, legislatures, websites, radio and TV studios and the like, it becomes time for stronger countermeasures ... quarantines and the like.
The NRA says it has developed a vaccine but they keep trying to inject the wrong people.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 01:01 PM
"I lean to a genetic predisposition myself, but when I lean too far, I tend to fall over."
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 10, 2015 at 02:08 PM
"The US show unpleasant similarities to the late Roman republic with the GOP as the Optimates and the Dems as the Populares"
Only a complete lack of self awareness would allow the Dems to be considered the Populares. The majority of small assemblies of people in this country are Republican, the miniscule wins in the Presidency aside. The coalition of Wealthy and elitist intellectuals are Optimates led by the singular least populist leader in memory. No party has worked so hard to bypass the peoples forums as the modern Democrats and the Obama administration.
Posted by: Marty | August 10, 2015 at 02:28 PM
speaking of astonishingly crazy...
Posted by: cleek | August 10, 2015 at 02:31 PM
In a nation where The Donald is seen (and not just by himself) as a populist, Marty's analysis is NOT "astonishingly" crazy.
--TP
Posted by: Tony P. | August 10, 2015 at 02:42 PM
The majority of small assemblies of people in this country are Republican....
This could use a little statistical unpacking. I can see it wiggling all the way from over here.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 10, 2015 at 02:52 PM
Governors, house seats, state legislatures, I cant speak to county government but I'll check around. Isn't hard to unpack.
Posted by: Marty | August 10, 2015 at 03:01 PM
Sure, but the questions become - how big is the majority in a given body, and how many people does that body represent?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 10, 2015 at 03:09 PM
The majority of small assemblies...
ain't gerrymandering great?
it's how you can win 48% of the vote (2012) and win a majority of House seats. then win 52% (2014) and get 57% of the House seats.
and then you can parade around in your skivvies shouting "they love us! they really love us!"
Posted by: cleek | August 10, 2015 at 03:14 PM
Then there's this.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 10, 2015 at 03:23 PM
If you are going to ask "Is this a populist party?" you need two things:
1) what percentage of the votes do you need in order to qualify? A simple majority? Some level more than that?
2) what percentage of the nationwide total votes for, for example, Congress did that party get. (The number of Representatives elected is irrelevant.) Or, if you prefer, what percentage of the total votes for state legislators did that party get?
Posted by: wj | August 10, 2015 at 03:26 PM
can someone explain to me what's "populist" about wanting to repeal the 17th A ?
Posted by: cleek | August 10, 2015 at 03:41 PM
Actually, no, not really. Popular != populist. Identifying populism requires a look at the demographics of candidates moreso than voters, as well as (nost importantly) a look at platforms and rhetoric. The Tea Party and Occupy movements both have legitimate populist leanings (although the Tea Party, in its fawning reverence for materialism, is more inclined to identify with monied elites who spout the right buzzwords, while Occupy, in typical leftist fashion, is more concerned with ideological purity and thus is far less significant politically). The Democrats and Republicans at large? Not so much.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 10, 2015 at 03:41 PM
Also populares <> populist (in the modern sense). It's still an unresolved question among historians, whether the Gracchi (the embodiment of populares) were actually concerned about the commoners, simply noticed that business as usual would sooner or later lead to a bloody revolution or were just cynical demagogues that feigned concern for the commoners just as a tool to better their own political position. In the US Dems you will find all of these (FDR being the poster child for the middle position: an aristocrat opening the safety valve to prevent an explosion).
Posted by: Hartmut | August 10, 2015 at 03:44 PM
Why cleek, you silly goose, isn't it obvious? The 17th Amendment is Washington meddling in what is plainly state business, and by default anything that snubs Federal institutions in favor of state ones is a blow struck for the interests of the common man. Get your Federal government hands off of Congress!
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 10, 2015 at 03:46 PM
Anybody got numbers on the number of Democratic Senators from states with Republican state legislators? Vs the number of Republican Senators from states with Democratic state legislators?
That will tell you all you need to know about the importance of the 17th Amendment. And to whom.
Posted by: wj | August 10, 2015 at 04:34 PM
The Count's performance art aside, this is the most astonishingly crazy thing I have read in OW comments in recent memory.
Props.
Well, looks like I am off the hook for a while.
Posted by: bobbyp | August 10, 2015 at 04:50 PM
Populists come cheap when the oligarchy and the elites dangle the cash:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/08/10/turn-on-your-lights-let-it-shine-on-me/
The Kochs buy the populist rubes too.
Please, sir, keep my wages low while I vote to cut your taxes.
Please, sir, keep the federal government's hands off my Medicare.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 05:05 PM
The majority of small assemblies in the Confederacy were nearly all of one party too.
John Wilkes Booth was a populist putting a bullet in an elitist's head.
Everyone has merely switched places for the next round of the passion play.
I'm not a Barbara Streisand Democrat, as she'll learn when her taxes go up.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 05:14 PM
Fiorini treated her campaign staff like her Hewlett Packard employees and like she'll treat ordinary Americans if she gets anywhere near Federal office:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/10/the_gops_carly_conspiracy_why_carly_fiorina_is_surging_in_the_republican_primary_and_what_it_means/
However, it will sound so much better for the Republicans if Fiorini is going after Clinton's post-menopausal hormonal imbalances rather than having the ten bohunk cave-men doing the job.
A vagina even a Koch could love.
If Fiorini's poll numbers continue to ascend in the primaries, expect the ten male Republican dwarves to put a lot of time and money into tracking down her personal medical records for evidence of abortions.
Unless the Kochs and FOX decide to erect a bullet-proof chastity belt around her nether regions, so the small assemblies in the country buy that she's just another big winging republican d&ck.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 05:27 PM
If you look at the numbers, and gauge who received the most enthusiasm, the small assemblies during the recent debate sided with the extremely wealthy resentment monger playing at Palin populism, Donald Trump, against their previous extremely wealthy sugar daddy, the Murdoch empire, playing at Palin populism, commandeered by the Roger Ailes.
Now the two elite pigf*ckers have kissed and made up, creating their own small assembly.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/yes-course-donald-trump-fueled-politics-resentment
Champagne wishes and caviar dreams will be all that's left of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 05:42 PM
The small assemblies in New Jersey and Wisconsin, of all political stripes, now hate their respective populist Republican mentors:
Chris Christie and Scott Walker.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 05:49 PM
In a nation where The Donald is seen (and not just by himself) as a populist, Marty's analysis is NOT "astonishingly" crazy.
In a sane country, saying that Obama was even simply less populist than his predecessor (a blueblood New England scion with degrees from Yale and Harvard who benefited enormously from family wealth and whose policies heavily favored the fiscal elite) would be laughable. Sadly, I agree that it's actually an entirely reasonable assertion just given how much weight rhetoric holds in our national discourse. It isn't for no reason that Trump can actually get called populist w/o the laugh track cuing. It is for no good reason, but that's another matter entirely.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 10, 2015 at 06:28 PM
The laugh track has been cued, but it doesn't matter.
The malign clowns and their malign intentions expressed in a malign manner are no longer mediated by either good-natured or vicious satire and ridicule to dilute the malignity, and burn if off into the atmosphere as a relatively harmless byproduct.
You can see now that the malign wear the satire and ridicule as a badge, as Trump is bringing to the fore and further emboldening
those who so effing sincere about their malign intentions for tens of millions of people in this country.
Goosestepping seemed worthy of pointing and laughing too when the craze started. Then it became just another acceptable way of walking all over the Other. Gosh, those floppy shoes do more damage than we thought.
It's another step toward "astonishing and crazy" that no one would have imagined 25 years ago in the swiftly deteriorating civil discourse.
Discourse, which I believe, will terminate at some point in unbelievable, astonishing violence, unlike anything this country has ever experienced domestically, against the malignity of the Republican Party.
Worse than against the Confederacy, because the weaponry the Republican Party has placed in the public's hands is astonishingly more lethal.
I'm probably wrong, which wouldn't be astonishing.
If I'm right, there will be no time left to be astonished.
We can still step back, but when it starts, it's over. No uniforms, no sides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwTxRuq-uk
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 07:13 PM
The laugh track has been cued, but it doesn't matter.
The malign clowns and their malign intentions expressed in a malign manner are no longer mediated by either good-natured or vicious satire and ridicule to dilute the malignity, and burn if off into the atmosphere as a relatively harmless byproduct.
You can see now that the malign wear the satire and ridicule as a badge, as Trump is bringing to the fore and further emboldening
those who so effing sincere about their malign intentions for tens of millions of people in this country.
Goosestepping seemed worthy of pointing and laughing too when the craze started. Then it became just another acceptable way of walking all over the Other. Gosh, those floppy shoes do more damage than we thought.
It's another step toward "astonishing and crazy" that no one would have imagined 25 years ago in the swiftly deteriorating civil discourse.
Discourse, which I believe, will terminate at some point in unbelievable, astonishing violence, unlike anything this country has ever experienced domestically, against the malignity of the Republican Party.
Worse than against the Confederacy, because the weaponry the Republican Party has placed in the public's hands is astonishingly more lethal.
I'm probably wrong, which wouldn't be astonishing.
If I'm right, there will be no time left to be astonished.
We can still step back, but when it starts, it's over. No uniforms, no sides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwTxRuq-uk
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 07:28 PM
OK, the Count's starting to repeaat himself. I think that means it's time to start hammering the Democrats for a while instead. (Just until he gets his mojo back....)
Posted by: wj | August 10, 2015 at 07:44 PM
My hammer's available for beating up on Democrats too, if anyone wants to use it.
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times ...
Lawn. Get off it. ;)
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 07:53 PM
I'm astonished, but the wonks repeat wonkie right on cue:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
Posted by: Countme-In | August 10, 2015 at 08:25 PM
I think that means it's time to start hammering the Democrats for a while instead.
Anybody remember "YEEAARRRGGGHHH!!"
Good times.
The things you think are useless, I can't understand.
Posted by: russell | August 10, 2015 at 11:14 PM