Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 30, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE....I realize that this is going to sound painfully patronizing, but seriously, I want to congratulate the rank-and-file voters of the Republican Party for their performance so far. Obviously I'm not planning to vote for any of the Republican candidates myself, but some are worse than others: Giuliani is a creepy one-note screwball; Huckabee is ignorant and proud of it; Thompson was a coma-inducing joke; and Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul were just vanity candidates. The two who are left, McCain and Romney, are by far the least offensive of the whole field. So: congratulations GOP. Considering what you had to work with, not a bad effort.

Kevin Drum 12:34 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Congratulations then, cold and flu, on prevailing over typhoid and cholera.

Posted by: Rand Careaga on January 30, 2008 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Couldn't agree with you more.

With the slight caveat that John McCain never met a war he didn't like. I think if anything he'd be (even) more warmongering than the Chimp.

Posted by: chuck on January 30, 2008 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder to what extent many Republicans' dislike of McCain actually stems from his earlier opposition to their beloved Bush.

Posted by: Zak on January 30, 2008 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

Thank God Giuliani's out of the race. Now, for the first time in my life, I can contemplate actually voting for a Republican, if Hillary "The Rules Don't Apply To Me" Clinton winds up the Dem nominee.

Posted by: Poko on January 30, 2008 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

when you praise like that, show you mean it -- use 20% greyscale.

XOXOXOXOXOX

Posted by: marych on January 30, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, a GOP partisan could easily substitute "Democrat" for "Republican" in your last post and repeat it almost word-for-word. That scares me.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 30, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Who says Huckabee is out? He may be able to cherry-pick enough Southern and more rural Midwestern states (Kansas, Nebraska, Dakotas, Oklahoma) to play a serious spoiler, at least.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on January 30, 2008 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Rand Careaga - Hilarious comment.

Posted by: gabbo on January 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin just passed bitchslapping 101 with ans A+! Good work son!

Posted by: elmo on January 30, 2008 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

There's damning with faint praise.

McCain and Romney are still plenty creepy and toxic.

Posted by: fourlegsgood on January 30, 2008 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

I call it right now--McCain/Huckabee 2008. It makes too much sense. Brace yourselves.

Does this benefit Hillary or Obama? It can (and no doubt will) be spun both ways. I will say this--McCain is quite overestimated as a politician. He doesn't really give good speeches and he's got a nontrivial amount of dirt in his background. Plus, Hillary and Obama would both be able to hammer him on the economy. He's a media creation. And they haven't done him any favors by pitching softballs to him lo these many years.

Posted by: Lev on January 30, 2008 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

McCain is the John Kerry of 2008 (the 'electable' but uncreative and boring candidate whose past is so much more exciting than his future).

Hillary is the George Bush of 2008 (the make-the-opposition-want-to-vomit-in-their-houseplant-pots candidate).

We know how 2004 turned out.

Posted by: Pup, MD on January 30, 2008 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Two words to insure massive GOP turnout in November: Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: martin on January 30, 2008 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Could you be a little more creative, martin?

Posted by: elmo on January 30, 2008 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, it's always admirable when the candidates you choose to vote for merely smell like a mound of shit, as opposed to a mountain of shit.

Anyway, it's better than Bush, who IS shit.

Posted by: Anon on January 30, 2008 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

I'm an ardent Obama supporter who has never even contemplated voted Republican in the three Presidential elections I've been eligible. And, until recently, I told myself that I'd just hold my nose and pull the lever for Hillary if need be this year.
Not anymore, though. After seeing Hillary's antics tonight in Florida, along with her disgusting behavior over the last month -- I mean, does she ever stop spinning the truth? -- I'll happily vote McCain. I have a feeling I won't be the only one.

Posted by: Ryan on January 30, 2008 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, Ryan? Ardent? Does she ever stop spinning the truth?

And you think McFlilin hasn't, you know, spun his fare share? Like I said, take that bait, please...

Posted by: elmo on January 30, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, the process worked on the republican side and the two best people advanced to the top.

What about on the democratic side? Do you folks consider the process to have worked in advancing the two best people to the top?

Posted by: brian on January 30, 2008 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

brian, lay off the viagra. McFilin and Romsissy, the cream of the wingnut crop? You crack me the fuck up...

Posted by: elmo on January 30, 2008 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

elmo,

That the two best republicans won out was kevin's point. I happen to agree.

What is the answer about whether the democratic process produced the two best at the top?

Posted by: brian on January 30, 2008 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Couldn't agree with you more. I think Huckabee is ignorant and proud of it. Even when I read his book " Character Makes a Difference", I found it:
http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=71709&ru=279

Posted by: Jason on January 30, 2008 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

martin writes:

Two words to insure massive GOP turnout in November: Hillary Clinton.

People rarely turn out in droves to vote against someone - they generally turn out to vote for the candidate they like. Bush 04 is a prime example.. Democrats were united against Bush, but they weren't pro-Kerry enough to vote out Bush.

Posted by: Andy on January 30, 2008 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

I too congratulate the Republicans on narrowing it down to (1) the insane old man with the violent temper for whom the Vietnam War tragically never ended and (2) the out-and-out phony. Thanks, guys!

Actually, though, I do like it when the out-and-out phony discusses "Republican stool."

Posted by: FreakyBeaky on January 30, 2008 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

Jeb Bush. The nightmare on main street... continues.

Posted by: Jay in Oregon on January 30, 2008 at 2:55 AM | PERMALINK

"Thank God Giuliani's out of the race. Now, for the first time in my life, I can contemplate actually voting for a Republican, if Hillary "The Rules Don't Apply To Me" Clinton winds up the Dem nominee."


Don't be a fool. If McCain wins who do you think his AG will be- Rudy that's who. Can you imagine Rudy as Attorney General.?

Posted by: peter B on January 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

People rarely turn out in droves to vote against someone - they generally turn out to vote for the candidate they like. Bush 04 is a prime example.. Democrats were united against Bush, but they weren't pro-Kerry enough to vote out Bush.

I'm not sure I buy that. How about this: Democrats are often motivated by wanting to vote in favor of a candidate and Republicans are often motivated by wanting to vote against a candidate. Bush was able to get elected and re-elected, not because he had any strong qualifications for the presidency, but because he could stir up some remarkably venomous hatred toward his opponents. (Remember all those purple heart band-aids that Republicans were sporting at the convention?)

Nothing about Gore or Kerry justifies any strong dislike at all. They are both decent, intelligent, honorable men. But Bush knew that his only road to the White House was the low road and he took it. Bob Dole didn't take a similar approach against Clinton and so he lost. Which path will McCain take? I really don't know. But the hatred against Hillary will already be there, without him having to do anything at all.

Posted by: Oregonian on January 30, 2008 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

Tancredo was the best.

1. Libs who have no patriotism shall eventually have no country as we are overrun. The lesson of the final days of the Roman empire. Note that a Reagan amnesty of three million brought in 30 million. (The government estimate of 12 million is silly.) This is what we call "exponential growth," meaning the next leap will get your attention.

2. Corruption and democracy are not compatible, since corrupt governments perpetuate themselves, so the more chamberpot immigrants from corrupt cultures (like Mexico) we take in, the less democracy.

3. We are on the cusp of overpopulation, so look for water shortages, worldwide competition for food since we will be a net importer of food in twenty years, more and more people who can't afford natural resources such as land for housing, etc., as migrant populations pour into this country in ever increasing numbers to take the remaining scraps.

4. Minorities don't like white people very much, so as we move into minority-majority America white libs will be having a dream and it'll be payback time for your little honky kids. This will be greatly exacerbated by the economic decline of the U.S. Tolerance is largely a luxury of the rich because when there isn't enough to go around you take care of your own first. Immutable human nature.

Posted by: Luther on January 30, 2008 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

Its still a moral and intellectual leper colony. I wouldn't trust these guys to not steal candy from a baby.

Posted by: Aaron on January 30, 2008 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

What remains frightens and keeps people awake at night!
McCain's indifference to and lack of awareness of national domestic issues baffles the mind, and Romney is similarly removed from the average citizen, as evidenced by his comment about buying stocks cheaply with the stock market plummeting. No interest in the poor and disadvantaged, continued war-mongering, elitism and sickening ideologies. Bush all over again.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 30, 2008 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

Guiliani was the primary threat, as far as authoritarianism, but McCain becomes the shadow authoritarian candidate now, with Romney becoming the voice of moderation, in that noone on the Right would accept a Mormon becoming the abject authority for the nation, so you know he won't be able to go over the line in terms of presidential power.

Cold comfort really since Romney is the worst kind of shapeshifter.

Posted by: Jimm on January 30, 2008 at 4:46 AM | PERMALINK

I do agree, Kevin, that either of the two remaining GOP candidates would likely govern sensibly if elected. Why wasn't this sensibility in the party during the 2000 nominating process???

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 30, 2008 at 4:58 AM | PERMALINK

The truculent McCain would be a disaster as President. But at least we are not going to have to listen to lots of nauseating talk about "faith", and see Hispanic immigrants demonized and scapegoated. Maybe there is a residual core of decent Republicans, after all.

Posted by: bob h on January 30, 2008 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK
I do agree, Kevin, that either of the two remaining GOP candidates would likely govern sensibly if elected.
I've already had to live under Mitt Romney's rule. On his best day, meh. Though, being a college educated white male, I may not have received the brunt of his conservative ethos.

That, however, is not my point, nor is it central to it.
We just don't, as a nation and as part of a civilization, have time for another four years of "governing sensibly" in a post-8-years-of-GeorgeWBush world. Business as usual is the last thing we can afford.

Posted by: kenga on January 30, 2008 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

1) Baseless assertion.
2) Tenuous connection.
3) Fickle Opinion.
4) ???
5) Profit!!

Posted by: absent observer on January 30, 2008 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

—Kevin Drum

For the election or governing? For the election, no. For governing, if the republican wins, probably.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 30, 2008 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK
Giuliani is a creepy one-note screwball

He also didn`t campaign until now, a couple of days before dropping out. This may have influenced the results somewhat. He spend months at 30 points, ten points ahead of the number 2, Fred Thompson. Enough to have the poll driven media forgive him for coming second-ish in the early states. The media could buy that "the mayer of new York" does best in "big states" if only he didn`t completely lose the early ones by choice with pundits asking if his strategy will work.

Huckabee is ignorant and proud of it

He is also doing quite well. He is consistently ahead of Romney in the national polls (Thus beating the favorite of Kos, Josh and now Kevin ;-) ) Its the lack of funding thats holding back the Huckabee campaign. Somehow I don`t think the compliment was meant for the choices of the big GOP donors. How many GOP voters really disagree Saddams weapons are in Jordan, Iran is making nukes "national inteligence esti-what?", Pakistan needs to control its eastern borders with Afghanistan, there are a lot of illegal Pakistani immigrants... and when is Musharaf gonna stop his emergency rule? Lets spread Coca Cola and Burger king... Rudy is such an Ivy league big west coast city McDonalds elitist.

Thompson was a coma-inducing joke

And if the polls have any value they tell you it was the coma inducing campaign that did him in. He held the national number 2 spot for months before Huckabee toke it from him. The fact that he did that without running, let alone campaigning can`t be worthy of a compliment for the GOP rank-and-file voters.

Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul were just vanity candidates

So why would people know about them, let alone not make the smart choice of not voting for them?

Of course I am glad to see Rudy fail. I would love to believe its the republican voters that won`t make Bush size mistakes again... and again.

Rudy after all "wrote" that he believes that Americans believe in natural rights that god gave to all humans and that the state should enforce... except for Palestinians who do not yet "deserve a state"...

He wrote that there are states that you cant talk to because they are insane (states, as in entire countries), and that there are states you can talk to... and Iran is an example of this choice. period.

He thinks realpolitik is the best, except for the tiny problem of not leaving room for moralism.

Posted by: asdf on January 30, 2008 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

Except for Huckabee, I never really entertained the concept that any of the fallen candidates would make it through.

Consider me a glass-half-empty kind of guy but when I think about a McCain or Romney administration I find it hard to imagine the positives.

Posted by: B on January 30, 2008 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK


Not anymore, though. After seeing Hillary's antics tonight in Florida, along with her disgusting behavior over the last month -- I mean, does she ever stop spinning the truth? -- I'll happily vote McCain. I have a feeling I won't be the only one.

You know, you don't HAVE to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat. You could vote for the Libertarian, the Green, or even write in someone you find less offensive if it comes down to Clinton/McCain.

"But then I might vote for someone who has no chance of winning!"

Wouldn't that be preferable to seeing McCain get the country into more stupid wars and knowing that you'd voted for him? It's not a horse race. No one's going to give you money for correctly picking 1st or 2nd place.

Posted by: Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic on January 30, 2008 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

Rand Careaga signs, seals and delivers it in comment #1.

But I smiled at kenga's "That, however, is not my point, nor is it central to it."

Posted by: shortstop on January 30, 2008 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

[The GOP is] still a moral and intellectual leper colony. I wouldn't trust these guys to not steal candy from a baby.

Actually, it's all about incentives. If the baby really assigned sufficiently high utility to her candy, then she would defend it more staunchly. Therefore, taking candy from a baby only redistributes it to more productive sectors of the economy. That way the candy can be best appreciated by someone who assigns it a high utility, and maximal efficiency results.

Posted by: Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic on January 30, 2008 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

Agreed! Though after hearing 'Flip-Flopney's' concession speech, I truly realized what a pandering, tool he is...

What an ass.

Posted by: Brian on January 30, 2008 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

If the choice is between a cranky old man whose campaign platform can be summarized in five words: "Fewer Jobs and More Wars" and Hillary Clinton, I chose Hillary every time. I am not going to waste my vote or stay home in protest. I am going to everything in power to make sure McCain is not elected. Any of the remaining Democrats would be a better choice than John "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain. Killing people is that bloodthirsty old crank's first resort. His vision for America is as dark as an unlit well at midnight.

Posted by: corpus juris on January 30, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Does Obama now have a better chance of beating McCain than does Hillary?

Posted by: Neil B. on January 30, 2008 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

After seeing Hillary's antics tonight in Florida, along with her disgusting behavior over the last month -- I mean, does she ever stop spinning the truth? -- I'll happily vote McCain.

Not looking forward to all the McCain concern trolls from now to November.

Posted by: jimBOB on January 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Well guess that proves that Kevin isn't really antiwar. A vote for McCain is vote for war, pure and simple. When we cripple and maim Iranian children with out cluster bombs after Pres. McCain takes office, at least you can clear your concious by saying to yourself "At least he doesn't believe in torutre. At least he's not a racist." Whatever.

Listen to the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath and you'll understand what John McCain is.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on January 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

With the slight caveat that John McCain never met a war he didn't like.

Well, except when the war was run by a Democrat. Back in 1993, McCain was famously for cutting and running and waving the white flag of surrender so as to abandon the starving Somali people to the warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid and his gunmen.

Posted by: Stefan on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

McCain's indifference to and lack of awareness of national domestic issues baffles the mind, and Romney is similarly removed from the average citizen, as evidenced by his comment about buying stocks cheaply with the stock market plummeting. No interest in the poor and disadvantaged, continued war-mongering, elitism and sickening ideologies. Bush all over again. - consider wisely always

Yeah, I think the public is definitely tired of being treated like Romney's dog. With the economy souring, anything coming from the Republican camp that sounds too much like Bush-again is going to be poison.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 30, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

There is very little difference in both substance and style between Sen. McCain and Mayour Giuliani. If Giuliani is very bad, so is McCain. McCain would be a very bad president. The only salient difference between the two is age. Last night one could see Giuliani planning for his 2012 presidential campaign. Hopefully McCain will be too infirm to run in another campaign after the current one, and hoepefull he will not win the current one.

Posted by: Brojo on January 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

"A vote for McCain is vote for war, pure and simple."

Oh, and a vote for Hillary isn't? Hillary is the one who has to prove she has testicles. McCain only has to pretend he still has them. Hillary is the one who has to prove she is tough -- you ask me, she's much more likely to nuke Iran than McCain.

I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Evita, either. We are not a banana republic -- yet.

Posted by: Traven on January 30, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

You know, you don't HAVE to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat.

Nope, you don't have to. Except, of course, that one or the other of them will win. You also don't have to vote at all. You could also stay home and catch up on that graphic novel you've been meaning to finish.

You could vote for the Libertarian, the Green, or even write in someone you find less offensive if it comes down to Clinton/McCain.

Or you could run around in a field of flowers! Or close your eyes and wish really, really hard for a pony!

Posted by: Stefan on January 30, 2008 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK
The two who are left, McCain and Romney, are by far the least offensive of the whole field.

I don't see any substantive way in which McCain and Romney are any better than Giuliani and Huckabee. They are, of course, better campaigners, but I don't see anything that would make them better Presidents.

McCain and Romney (like Giuliani and Huckabee) push a broader, deeper set of wrong ideas than some of the so-called "vanity" candidates, but no less wrong for that. So, what's to praise?

Posted by: cmdicely on January 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Listen to the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath...

Uh, why? I'd sooner vote for Ron Paul.

Heh, not really.

Last night one could see Giuliani planning for his 2012 presidential campaign.

He blathered on so long I figured he was trying to bridge the two campaigns.

Posted by: shortstop on January 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Thompson was a coma-inducing joke

And that's a reason to be happy he's out of the race? I don't think so.

Posted by: Robert the Red on January 30, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Two words to insure massive GOP turnout in November: Hillary Clinton.

Look, you're pretending like this hasn't happened before. Republicans hated Bill Clinton in 1996 and they hated Al Gore in 2000, and they had massive turnout to vote against them. Result? Clinton and Gore won the popular vote in both those races.

Posted by: Stefan on January 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

McCain is the John Kerry of 2008 (the 'electable' but uncreative and boring candidate whose past is so much more exciting than his future).

Hillary is the George Bush of 2008 (the make-the-opposition-want-to-vomit-in-their-houseplant-pots candidate).

I'd buy that.

The only problem is that Republicans are far more reliable voters than Democrats or Democratic leaning independents. I don't think that's a trivial difference.

Considering how close 2004 was compared to most elections (excluding 2000), I wouldn't assume a Democratic win.

Posted by: lobbygow on January 30, 2008 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Do we really need to scare so easily? Left Blogistan pissed itself with fear over Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson when they came on the scene. Look at how that turned out. Now we're blubbering over John McCain.

Two things that aren't going to get any better from now until the election are Iraq and the economy. We're going to have to draw down marginally in Iraq (which is the worst thing to do: either flood the country with troops or get out), Sadr isn't going to stay his hand forever, and paying people to not shoot at us is not a sustainable strategy. Beyond cheering for the surge (which, by the way, accomplished none of the political goals it was supposed to), what has McCain got to offer?

Second, the economic downturn is maybe in the second inning. Bush and the Fed have goosed the economy for seven years now, so all of the fiscal tools (tax cuts and spending increases) and the monetary ones (rate cuts) have been pushed to their limits. McCain knows nothing about the economy, and is on record saying this. What's he got to offer?

The election is in November, remember.

Posted by: ericblair on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Mc Cain is a lovable old warmonger, the most dangerous kind. He was wildly enthusiastic about the Iraq invasion in 2002 and completely misunderstood the military and counter-insurgency issues in Afghanistan- he never objected to the US pulling resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. He doesn't understand local Iraqi politics and how divided that country is. His genial ways which led many NH antiwar voters to choose him are dangerously misleading. He is also much loved by reporters, just as they loved Dubya Bush in 2000.

How would unlovable hard-edged HRC beat Mc Cain? Only if a very conservative guy like Tancredo runs as an independent. Ron Paul probably won't run and would not get many Mc Cain votes if he did. Could HRC help herself with Wes Clark as VP? Yes, and he is a loyal follower, something that the Clintons value. They are not going to pick Obama or Edwards as VP and likely would be refused if they did. Nothing will make reporters love Clinton- just as most Washington reporters were turned off by Bill Clinton within months of his assumption of the Presidency. Although they love to write about Obama, they don’t like him either- Obama doesn’t give reporters time or joke with them like McCain & Bush.

So McCain stands for more war, more insane spending which is destroying our country and stupid unfocused war, all in a smiling "maverick package" favored by political reporters. He will probably do better with Latinos than Clinton. Why is this good news?

Posted by: erewhon on January 30, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

The election is in November, remember.

True.

I can't imagine the personal economic picture of most Americans improving before November, and that matters far more than the stock market when it comes to the election. People have a vague sense of unease about the future and are certainly feeling the pinch of rising prices vs. stagnated wages, even in the upper middle class.

However, I have learned not to underestimate the effect that fear and loathing can have on elections. I didn't think that Bush had a chance in 2004, but if we're to believe the conventional wisdom (always suspect, of course) Kerry lost because a substantial number of voters weren't willing to switch horses in the middle of a "war" with malevolent mustachioed Muslim minions. I call it the "M4" strategy.

I guess it all comes down to what modifier the pundits will put in front of "moms" next time. Will the "insolvency moms" trump the "security moms?"

Posted by: lobbygow on January 30, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

The only problem is that Republicans are far more reliable voters than Democrats or Democratic leaning independents. I don't think that's a trivial difference.

Well, not quite. For one thing, there are more Democrats than there are Republicans. For another, Bush only won in 2004 because (massive vote fraud in Ohio aside) the GOP managed to turn out 4 million evangelical voters, voters who are unlikely to turn out in similar droves to vote for either the serial adulterer McCain or the Mormon Romney.

Posted by: Stefan on January 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

[McCain] will probably do better with Latinos than Clinton.

Not true. Hispanics favor the Democratic Party by a two to one margin:

The Immigrant Vote
Published January 19, 2008

....In a poll late last year by the Pew Hispanic Center, only 23 percent of Latinos identified themselves as Republicans, down from 28 percent in 2006. Hispanics who identified themselves as Democrats surged from 49 percent to 57 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/opinion/19sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: Stefan on January 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

@Stefan,

Thanks for saving me the trouble of coming up with a straw man.

What exactly is the benefit you're citing of voting for someone "realistic"? If each of the Big Two disgusts you, then why on earth would you want to cast a ballot for a candidate that disgusts you? Is it a jaded pride thing, saying in essence, "I'm too cool to vote with those geeks that only get 0.5% of the vote. Those people are hopelessly naive. But not me! I'm proud to vote with the cool kids, never mind that they're the same cool kids I believe are fucking up our country royally."

Look, you're right that there are all kinds of things on Election that would bring some people more utility than voting. Those people probably shouldn't vote. But others of us think participating in the system, no matter how fruitless it may be, is a worthy pursuit. And I'm saying that voting for a candidate you like who has no hope of winning is as legitimate a means of participating as betting on the #2 horse because you find him less disgusting than the #1 horse.

Actually, I consider it more honorable, but that puts me in a tiny minority.

Posted by: Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic on January 30, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Only a latte/limo lib isolated from what this economy is doing to the poor would think that the fiscally conservative/socially liberal Romney is preferable to the fiscally lib/socially conservative Huckabee.

Posted by: Disputo on January 30, 2008 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

GOP voters have done an excellent job sorting the chaff from the stones.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on January 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

btw, lmao @ Rand's comment

Posted by: Disputo on January 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

the left recoils from authority figures. it is rejoicing over Guliani's defeat. let us look at a few paranoia free facts. he drove the mob out of the ny waterfront. in the most heavily unionized city in the country he got business tax cuts through the city council and balanced the budget. he cleared the streets of window cleaning beggars and most of the homeless.
did he make mistakes before and after 9/11? yes. however, to most apolitical observers he did perform superbly as a leader during that crisis. in other words he performed as you need a chief of state to. perhaps you would prefer a more carter-esque individual with his finger on the red button.
as an independant conservative i see the two most capable people out of the race: guliani and biden. ( even though i have not yet forgiven biden for his role in the bork fiasco ).

Posted by: jupiter giant on January 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

For the first time in 28 years, I really don't care who the Republicans put up, they are irrelevant.
The only thing that matters to me now is whether we'll get more of the same with Hillary, or roughly less of Hillary's DC institutionalism with Obama.
Personally, the two are beginning to look, and sound alike; but thats okay...as long as they're not Republican I'll vote for either one.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on January 30, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

More patronizing! Please, more more more of that. Thank you.

Posted by: s9 on January 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

i agree with sheerahkahn that the Republican party should be irrelevant. the performance of the idiot in the white house should make it so for decades. i voted for him twice.( we will not discuss once is a mistake , twice is .......). however, i see the Democrats gettine perilously close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
obama, while representing the marvelous approbation of what this country offers,is unlikely to beat hilary. in which case the choice will be between a sleezy ,poll watching lawyer prostitute and an elderly straight shooter anti washington maverick. it will be closer than the pundits think.

Posted by: jupiter giant on January 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is going to win, cuz I ain't voting for Hillary. Bye bye democrats ... again.

Hopeless.

Posted by: Bye Bye Democrats on January 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK
Only a latte/limo lib isolated from what this economy is doing to the poor would think that the fiscally conservative/socially liberal Romney is preferable to the fiscally lib/socially conservative Huckabee.

Earlier in the campaign, I might have agreed with that. But throughout it, I see little evidence that Huckabee is all that committed to anything liberal on economic policies, just conservative policies with compassionate noises. Which, you know, we've seen before. Not that I see any reason to prefer Huckabee, just that I don't see any substantive reason to prefer either strongly that would justify the kind of position you take.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 30, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

I weigh Huckabee's record of helping the poor in AR more heavily than anything he says out on the stump wrt what he'll do in the WH, but I take your pt.

Posted by: Disputo on January 30, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

With the slight caveat that John McCain never met a war he didn't like.

How is this a "slight caveat"? Any reasonable sort would consider it a deal-breaker.

Posted by: ckelly on January 30, 2008 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

or even write in someone you find less offensive...

Yeah, but Joe Walsh never seems to garner the electoral votes needed.

Posted by: ckelly on January 30, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

4 million evangelical voters, voters who are unlikely to turn out in similar droves to vote for either the serial adulterer McCain or the Mormon Romney.

Hello VP Huckabee.

Posted by: ckelly on January 30, 2008 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Let's not kid ourselves. McCain would (will) be awful. Horrific. Maybe he would veto some pork spending (along with legitimate spending). Maybe he wouldn't block California setting its own emission standards. Not a Bible thumper or racist? whoopee.

But his foreign policy is IMPERIALISM & MILITARISM. Happily has bases around the world forever, as long as American casualties are acceptably low. Couldn't give two shits about deaths of non-americans. HONOR is at stake. Tonight he said in the debate repeatedly that he would never ever waver, etc. He could snap and do anything. War Pig is exactly right.

Posted by: Norbert on January 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly