This may be the most insightful analysis I have heard of the coming Republican primary craziness:
[F]or the most part, Republicans have already pledged to do whatever their interest groups want. So what we’re more likely to get from the GOP candiates is symbolism: candidates are going to try to try to distinguish themselves on the basis of who expresses resentment the best, or who can show the greatest contempt for Barack Obama, or who is least afraid of what Tea Parties see as stifling liberal orthodoxy.That’s the way to understand the appeal of Chris Christie, and we can expect one or more of the presidential candidates to ape Christie’s style. It’s also the best way to understand Rick Santorum’s bizarre choice to campaign on George W. Bush’s rejected Social Security plan. It’s not that Santorum thinks that Republican primary voters really want to get rid of Social Security; it’s that he believes what they want is a candidate willing to be as radical as they think of themselves as being. And how do you know something a candidate said is radical? Because it’s denounced by “everyone” out there.
Much of the 2012 primary will be shock art, lunacy for the sake of lunacy. Quien es mas loco, Michelle Bachmann o Rick Santorum?
RosiesDad
As a resident of PA who was embarrassed to be represented by Santorum, I vote for Man on Dog.
Bachmann is also batshit nuts but I think she’s only Triple A material compared with Santorum.
MikeJ
Lady Gaga should run. Pity GG Allin is dead.
Corner Stone
President Obama is in a lot of trouble. All this nonsense besides itself.
Bulworth
Speaking of the crazy, T-Paw has double-tripled down with his magical genie in a bottle I-declare-there-will-be-5%-economic-growth-for-a-whole-decade economic “plan”.
Mark S.
Sargent is right. T-Paw is supposedly the reasonable conservative choice, and his budget proposal was even more pie-in-the-sky supply side than Ryan’s piece of shit. I’m waiting for the first candidate to propose abolishing all taxes forever.
Warren Terra
@Bulworth:
That’s the part that’s getting all the attention at the moment (it’s the only part Yglesias and Ezra really blogged about, and TPM has Republican economists on record saying it’s insane), probably because it can quickly be proven to be unconnected to reality without making any statements that reflect badly on the Laffer Curve or other objects of Republican idolatry. Still, it’s worth pointing out that the rest of Pawlenty’s “plan” is also just nuts:
1) Only three tax brackets; top bracket is 25%, or barely more than two thirds of the current one
2) Halve the corporate tax rate; the US statutory rate is admittedly high, but our collections of corporate taxes are the lowest in the developed world because of loopholes. Anyone think those will be closed?
3) Privatize every service for which there is alleged to be a non-government alternative – a group in which he explicitly includes the post office (try getting Fedex to take $0.50 postage, let alone magazine rates) and Amtrak.
As I said in a comment yesterday, the thing that really scares me about Pawlenty’s insane “budget” isn’t really that it’s a farce, it’s that it’s a farce emerging from the thoroughly mainstream-republican, corporate-money-and-professional-advisers Pawlenty campaign. You hire the best and the brightest (or at least the most expensive) of the professional class of Republican political and policy advisers to formulate a budget they’re comfortable with and that they think will appeal to the Republican primary electorate and not expose Pawlenty to ridicule from the MSM, and that pile of cynically transparent nonsense is what issues forth. That is scary.
cat48
Actually, it’s already started; from the Caucus:
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
Post Jonestown Massacre, the phrase “drinking the Kool Aid®” has been a catch-all phrase for buying into such-and-such orthodoxy or group think. Gotta give the Republicans credit for reminding us that the original purpose for drinking the stuff was to do away with one’s self (in this case, capturing or keeping any of the elected branches of government).
Chris
Hoo, hoo, hoo!!! Cheesa peecha wakkiee Chewbacca! This candidate is my kind of scum!
– Chris Christie endorsement at the 2012 Republican National Convention
Jeffro
Romney’s camp is already weighing Bachman for the VP slot and help neutralize critics/bring out the ground troops. Can’t be Hunstman (a double Mormon ticket?) or Pawlenty (a doubly deathly dull ticket). I’d say Cain but there’s no religious right connection, or at least not one as strong as Bachman’s.
Romney/Bachman, nickel bet.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
I personally think Bernstein’s post a little later is just as good, dealing with how the crazy is an explicit advantage for the GOP, simply because they get away with it.
srv
That’s quite a title.
beltane
What a lopsided political system we have. We’ve got a right-wing that is as far to the right as is possible without the usual mass violence and genocide, and a right-leaning “center” that is failing to meet the challenges provided by our failing economy and rapidly deteriorating environment. Where is the left to provide the needed third ring in our three ring circus of a country?
MAJeff
@RosiesDad:
.
Has The Frothy Mix ever been found hiding in the bushes, spying on gay folks, a la crazy eyes?
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/12/michele_bachmanns_worst_moments.php
arguingwithsignposts
@srv: As long as there’s no video.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
@Jeffro:
I’m actually curious to see if this bunch doesn’t go as extreme asgainst Mittens are they’re willing to against Obama. Romney may have the most potential mainstream appeal, but seems to me there’s a chance he’s gonna be very damaged goods when this is all over unless someone schools them on Ronnie’s Eleventh.
DanielX
Yesssssssss!!! Bring on teh crazy! This is gonna be like watching Reservoir Dogs, or maybe rabid wolverines, and if I still ate popcorn I’d be stocking up. I’d say that I’ll enjoy watching whoever ends up with the Repub nomination get stomped like a grape in the general, but….unlikelier things have happened, like Obama beating McCain. Still going to be fun, though, since anyone crazy enough to make the 27 percenters happy enough to win the Republican primary will most likely make the rest of the electorate flee in terror.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
@srv:
I propose we just call the ‘011 Republican presidential primaries SCAAC. It’s so very fitting.
MarkJ
Who is “everyone”? I ask because “everyone” in the lamestream media embraced the bold, in your face, Ryan kill medicare plan. But joe republican voter still ain’t buying, and joe (or jane) independent voter sure as hell ain’t buying. I really think they could scare off even their own base if they carry this too far.
I do agree, though, that folksy resentment and grievance will be their key calling card.
ant
@srv:
yeah doug, wus with the title man?
that’s gross.
Chris
@beltane:
What’s striking is that there’s never really been one. There’ve been a few Soshulist parties here and there, but never anything broad or popular enough to actually matter.
The closest we had were the populists who were around from, say, William Jennings Bryan in the 1890s to Huey Long in the 1930s. And even then, Long credited the Bible and the Constitution for inspiring him; replied “hell no!” when asked if he was a communist and called his own plan “the only defense against communism;” and held a debate with Norman Thomas, head of the Soshulist Party, on why his Share Our Wealth platform was better than soshulist. Even at its most radical, American populism was still anti-soshulist and anti-communist.
It’s not that I’m particularly supportive of state or “collective” (whatever the hell that means) control of the means of production, and I’ve got plenty of issues with Bryan and Long. It’s just that a hell of a thing that there’s never been more than a fringe soshulist movement in the U.S.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
Er, I meant ‘012. And why do I get “You do not have permission to edit this comment” when I try to?
Violet
I can’t wait for the first debate where most of these characters show up. Please, can we have Michelle “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann and Sarah “Grifter” Palin on the same stage? Palin can’t stand not being the only boner-maker in the room. The claws will be out. Meow!
bemused
So republican voters want a slate of candidates that is essentially a bunch of 10 year old boys having a peeing contest and they’ll choose the one who can pee the farthest?
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
@Studly Pantload, a full-service troll:
Uhp, here we go:
House GOPer Plans Mitt-bush in Detroit
Josh Marshall | June 8, 2011, 5:07PMRep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) has scheduled a Wednesday anti-Mitt Romney rally in his district attacking what he calls the “Romney-Obama ticket.”
Even if the other candidates don’t go medieval on Mittens, plenty on the right will be happy to take up the cause.
Linda Featheringill
I actually like the title and the implication of what Republican candidates will have to do with the cup.
You know, any self-respecting Republican would suddenly find family responsibilities that preclude running for the presidential nomination.
Turgidson
@bemused:
Sounds about right. And the pee will have the post-asparagus-eating aroma, also too.
r
republicans like christie because hes what they wish they could be – a complete, unapologetic asshole in public without any threat of getting his ass beat in.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
That’s as good a description and as elegant a slam on the Tea Baggers as I’ve seen
Mike in NC
Or as Tbogg calls him — “Governor Krispie Kreme”
Linda Featheringill
@Studly Pantload, a full-service troll:
“You do not have permission to edit this comment”
I don’t know but did you right click on “click to edit” and choose “open in a new window”, make corrections, save, wait for the “comment has been successfully saved” sign, close down that window, come back to BJ and refresh it?
Progress, dude.
Turgidson
I know the GOP has gone completely batshit insane the past few years, but I still wonder if their desire to beat Kenyan-born sockulist anti-colonial America-hater Barry Hussein Osama Obama will win out over their need for ideological purty when all is said and done, locking us into a competitive race against Mittens after all.
It’ll be…interesting to see.
Michael D.
I have a question. I was listening to NPR awhile ago, and they were discussing the Healthcare case going on here in Atlanta…
The argument against “Obamacare” is that it is unconstitutional to make people buy health insurance. If that’s the case, then why am I mandated to pay – aka forced – through taxes, for the healthcare of some dumb shit teabagger when he gets free healthcare at the local ER because he was too stupid to buy insurance and decided to play a game of “Hey dude, watch this!”
Should mandating the rest of us to pay for his stupidity be unconstitutional as well? Seems to me that requiring us, by law, to cover the medical expenses of some bag of douche who was too fucking retarded to buy his own should be unconstitutional as well.
But maybe that’s just me.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
@Linda Featheringill:
Fuckin’ internets – how do they work?
shortstop
You know what I don’t get about most of these people? Apart from them being batshit crazy, on what alternative planet do they think their records make them good presidential candidates? Romney was a one-term governor and has done nothing for four years but run for president. Pawlenty has a longer record–some state legislative experience before two terms as governor, but he was reelected by less than one percent in his second term and virtually everyone in Minnesota hates his guts. Santorum got booted from the senate a full four years ago and he, too, has done nothing in the meantime except not get frothy mixtures off the top of Google search results. Palin didn’t finish one term, Cain’s had no elected office at all (right?), and on and on.
The party that’s always bitching about Obama’s “lack of experience” can’t seem to produce anyone with any recent experience to speak of.
Violet
@Michael D.:
Two answers:
1. Taxes are not the same thing as “forcing you to buy something.” Although according to the GOP, taxes are always wrong, they are not the same thing as forcing you to purchase an item. Forcing you to purchase something is wrong. That’s the GOP argument.
2. He wasn’t “too stupid,” he was “too cheap.” There’s a difference.
MonkeyBoy
Rush Limbaugh has been proud to say some thing not because they have meaning or a basis in fact but just because they get liberals sputtering upset – that pulling the chain of liberals is fun just to laugh at their reaction.
The current right-wing has progressed beyond this to use enemy opposition as validation – if enemies (liberals, scientists, minorities, Muslims, atheists, gays, feminists, …) react negatively to some proposal then that means it must be correct even if it has no other merits or justifications. Take for example Koran Burning which had the sole goal of insulting Muslims, not even some other goals about preventing impressionable children from reading the Koran.
I see the Republican field competing on who can be most offensive to their “enemies”. The easy thing about this is they don’t have to make any concrete proposals about anything else.
Redshift
@Michael D.: Careful — all you’ll get with that kind of thinking is a GOP move to strip the requirement that ERs minimally treat the uninsured. It actually hasn’t been around all that long, and I’m sure the for-profit hospital corps would be thrilled if their wholly-owned subsidiary could figure out a way to make it go away.
Redshift
@MarkJ: Yeah, it does make you wonder if there will be a point at which the party establishment will try to tamp it down so they don’t accumulate too much footage that will turn off general-election voters. It used to be they could count on no one paying much attention to primary campaigns, but these days everything is recorded and available forever.
Redshift
@Jeffro: Oh, good. It’ll be round 2 of the McCain “I used to respect him until he picked that nut from Alaska” reaction.
jwb
So what you’re saying is that we should all pretend to go ape-shit insane at everything that Palin or Bachmann says, but shrug our collective shoulders when Mittens, or T-Paw or Huntsman say the most outrageous things. I think we’re already on it.
shortstop
I don’t get the reference in this post title.
jwb
@Jeffro: No, if it’s Mittens it will be Perry. Outside shot of Rubio.
bemused
@r:
That sounds about right. Vicarious asshole voting.
Craig Pennington
I’ve made a campaign poster for the candidate mas loco.
jwb
@Turgidson: No, having weaponized the stupid, they are now going to have to ride the stupid all the way down. We’ll be seeing nothing but GOP id until they get completely destroyed in some future election. Unfortunately, economic conditions are such that I don’t think we’re likely to get a purging election for several more cycles.
srv
@shortstop: Lucky you. You want to let go of it before you regret it.
MattR
@srv: Seconded.
shortstop
Hmmm. All righty, then.
Studly Pantload, a full-service troll
@shortstop:
Look up the Wikipedia entry, “Two Girls, One Cup.”
Or, if you’re feeling *really* adventurous, you can Google it. But you might wanna wiki it, first.
cat48
@Linda Featheringill:
How’s Mojii? Is he healing?
Cain
It’s like they are running a “shock and awe” campaign against us!
shortstop
Well, you all tried to warn me, but I just had to know, didn’t I?
Yowch.
Turgidson
@jwb:
Yeah I suppose that’s true. The 2010 election made them think they have an overwhelming majority of America on their side when they go super-double crazy, and discontent over the economy will more or less guarantee that they will remain viable for the moment if they can tap into voter anger at the status quo again, even if they get ever-crazier. Ugh.
James E. Powell
Pawlenty can propose any economic program, not matter how divorced from reality it is, so long as it includes tax cuts. No one in the corporate press/media will even suggest there is anything wrong with it. Recall that in 2000, Bush was able to defend what were outright lies about his economic proposals with the phrase “fuzzy math.”
2012 will be a referendum on Obama, no more, no less. Thus far, he’s got almost nothing to take the people. While he has accomplished some things, he is not going to get any credit for the economy if unemployment is still high. He’s not going to get any credit for health care insurance reform because most of the country has no idea what changes were made. He’s not going to get credit for anything in foreign policy or military because he is a Democrat and he is black.
I wonder, what would Obama say are the top three reasons that he should be re-elected? Would any of them matter to the average American voter?
Joel
@James E. Powell: Bin Laden, bitches!
Jeffro
@Studly Pantload, a full-service troll: I think they will whack Romney around quite a bit, but the Big Money Wing of the GOP will probably help keep him going…and then he’ll put a religious-righter on the ticket as VP. Signed, sealed, delivered.
Romney could be bold and put Rubio or Haley on there (most likely Rubio) but after a good showing in Iowa, Bachman is going to have much of Palin’s following supporting her as well. These are folks who don’t have Huck to root for anymore – Bachman is the next closest thing no matter how much pandering T-Paw or Newt or any of the rest try to pull off.
Jeffro
@James E. Powell:
It’s going to be a weird one – half a referendum on the economy under Obama (and what he has/hasn’t done to improve it), and half a choice election on Obama vs. the whack-jobs on the right. In the end, the majority is going to hold their noses and vote for Obama by virtue of his not being crazy. If he tied the Republicans to the policies that got us to our current state, he’d win in a landslide. As it stands, he’ll probably lose a couple dozen electoral votes from 2008, but I bet he’ll take that. =)
Frankensteinbeck
@James E. Powell:
He’s not going to get any credit from the village talking heads. Shockingly, they do not actually represent American opinion. Obama is a very popular president who tends to score above Reagan in the polls. This is downright surreal considering the economy. I personally think that he looks and acts like a responsible adult and swing voters prefer this to screeching howler monkeys. But however it works, it works. Thank goodness.
Jeffro
@Redshift: Yup. I hope I get that same feeling I did back in 2008: “Oh thank GOD McCain picked her…now instead of a narrow Obama win we’ll get a decent margin of victory”
I suspect Romney/Bachman will be a much more coordinated, relentless, on-message machine than McCain/Palin was, though. They’ve got a lot more robot in them (and that is saying something)
grandpajohn
@cat48: ONe question for paw paw that should shut this juvenile crap up
“Who got Osama”
Mo's Bike Shop
And yet Jokeline still beats out missives about the Crazy Power of Unions. And the only way to explain being a Progressive is to bring up Colbert.
grandpajohn
@Jeffro: haley just lost a law suit brought by the republican leader of the senate, She was trying to force them into a special session this week to pass some of her tea party platform stuff. Supreme turned her down because they are back in regular session next week. Hey living in SC can have it moments of hilarity
Whats underlying the whole thing is this, SC governor has little actual power in controlling things so she and Sanford before her were continually trying to push through leg. that would give them more power. Legislative body ain’t gonna give up any power to the Gov. this has been an ongoing battle for years even before the GOP took power.
state senator Edgar Brown and The so called Barnwell gang of low country politicians controlled the legislative part of the state house for years thus effectively controlling the state. When Sen Maybank died in early 50,s I think it was ,Brown tried to get himself appointed to be the only dem candidate on the ballot to replace Maybank.
Thurmond opposed this and ran as a write in and won election as he was much more popular than Brown was, and that is how Strom became the first senator elected by write in.
chopper
@Jeffro:
dude has to win the primary before he announces a running mate. and mitt has a hell of an uphill climb to win the gooper nod with his history.
chopper
@Frankensteinbeck:
yeah, at this point in the gipper’s presidency his popularity ratings were shit. how did that work out for him? snuh.
Turgidson
@chopper:
Indeed. Hillary’s “inevitable” campaign had a far bigger early lead than Romney has managed to make for himself (against hilariously bad rivals, no less) so far. Disappointing results in Iowa and SC can derail his hopes and quick, with the way momentum can shift with those early primaries.
Of course, Obama was already keeping up with Hillary on the money front even before his Iowa victory – remains to be seen if a Teabagger like Bachmann or another far right wacko can have that kind of fundraising prowess. Maybe Palin, but…no amount of money will make her electable IMO.
goblue72
I don’t care what Nate Silver says, these guys are royally screwed and they know it – its why the only people running for the GOP nomination are the back-benchers, loonies and also-rans.
Obama’s adds are going to write themselves. They’ll play clips of him promising to get Osama bin Laden during the 2008 campaign trail and then a clip of Osama done being got. Him promising to reform healthcare on the 2008 campaign trail and then some quick stats about the benefits of healthcare reform. A clip promising to work to fix the economy, and then some feel good stats about saving the US car industry (and the jobs). Add some stuff about TARP being all (mostly) repaid, green energy stuff being built, college financial aid being expanded, etc.
Throw in some legitimate attack ads about Republican votes to turn Medicare into vouchers to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and its no wonder the GOP are flailing.
However, I’m sure Glenn Greenwald and the Firebagging brigade will throw a hissy fit still.
Midnight Marauder
@Jeffro:
Serious Question: How much will their message control matter when the message itself is fucking insane?
Ben Cisco
@goblue72: Preach it!
Jeffro
@chopper: True, but once he successfully pivots on what Romneycare was about (and he will – he practically already has) through his attacks on Obamacare, as if there was a shade of difference, he’ll be the only candidate with the money/backing from the Money Wing and the discipline to see the whole primary process through.
I mean, these people (the GOP candidate field) are a mess. The GOP’s Money Wing are investors, and I think they will back Romney because in the end he is their best hope of making it a close race or even winning. Romney will certainly say whatever it takes, he has the discipline, he already has the connections (not that we’ll hear much about his big-money roots during the campaign, oh no!)
All he needs to do is shore up the factions in the GOP base, and with Bachman (or longshot VP Rubio) he gets the religious right AND the Republican Tea Partyers (much as those two overlap). With Rubio he will be angling to increase the Hispanic vote for the GOP; with Bachman, he’ll try to peel off women. He’s not stupid – either one would potentially open up a whole new group of voters who have largely abandoned the Republican party.
Maybe I’m giving him too much credit. But as we’re all noting how weak a field Obama has in the general, Romney has a pretty weak field in the GOP primaries (assuming Palin stays out), and once he’s the nominee, there are ways for him to shore up the various factions in the GOP.
Jeffro
@Midnight Marauder: We know without a doubt that 27% of Real Murrikans will go for that message, no matter how insane ;)
mclaren
As a practical matter, what’s the difference?
We all know that Barack Obama will implement every one of the Republican nominee’s policy points once Obama wins a second term.
So why should anyone care if Sarah Palin wins the presidency? Obama will enact her entire policy platform regardless.
bob h
“..and we can expect one or more of the presidential candidates to ape Christie’s style”
The truculent slob style?