Log in

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012, 11:50 am
rMoney and the Frothy One

Today (ha ha! Freudian slip -- I first typed that as "toady") -- I say, Today is the date of the Republican presidential primaries in Arizona and Michigan. The current front runners are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum -- the absolutely clueless, tone-deaf, gaffe-prone businessman who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, and the scold who seems to think the Oval Office is in the Vatican.

It's hard for me to fathom why either of these guys wants to be President. Mittens apparently believes he's entitled to the job. Hasn't said much about what he'll do with it, except run it as a business, which worries a lot of people because his primary business accomplishment involved investing in flailing companies, leveraging them into bankruptcy, helping sell off the scraps, and pocketing a bundle for himself.

Why, just this weekend Mitt opened his mouth again. In the near-empty Ford Field speech Friday (his campaign blamed first the Detroit Economic Club and then the Secret Service for using the venue. Give me an effing break), Mitt reiterated his disdain for how Obama saved the auto industry. (You may remember that Mitt wrote a column back in 2008, titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".) He also mentioned his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs".

He also was at the Daytona 500 on Saturday. He noted that he's something of a NASCAR fan, saying he didn't know any drivers, but he was friends with some guys who owned NASCAR racing teams.

Oh, and he lies like a rug.

It's gotten so bad that even the mainstream media have been forced to noticed that the guy is utterly out of touch with the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans.

Santorum, meanwhile, seems to have a problem with women. And their sexuality. Seriously, he uses the word "libertine". Is he going to come out next against ragtime?

He agrees that birth control should be available -- unless religious organizations object. Not Ricky's fault -- he's just upholding the religious freedom of old white guys who are celibate mostly. Never mind the religious freedom of, y'know, women who might want to use contraception.

Santorum is, of course, well-known for equating gay marriage with man-on-dog sex, and for believing the right to privacy does not hold for sex acts between consenting adults. I believe he's also in favor of smaller government.

Truth is, he has no idea if he's for or against the separation of church and state. Oh, wait, of course he's against it. Did you know that JFK's landmark 1960 speech regarding the place of religion in the public square made Santorum want to throw up? Only one of the most important speeches in American history, definitively stating that the government will not bow to any hypothetical demands of the Church, and here's li'l Ricky pretty much announcing he'd be happy to bow to those same demands by the same Church.

He thinks women are too emotional for combat. His book It Takes A Family attacks "radical feminists" for "undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness", and when called on it Santorum said that part of the book was co-written by his wife.

Oh, and Obama is a "snob" for wanting people to attend college -- sorry, "indoctrination mills".

Long and short of it, these two men are idiots. One at least has the passion of his beliefs, even though he can't quite keep them straight on the campaign trail. The other is a full-blown, twisting-in-the-wind gaffe machine.

Do you want to know how stupid they are? Markos Moulistas, founder of The Daily Kos, came up with an idea called Operation Hilarity, which basically involves Democrats voting in open Republican primaries to boost candidates who need it so that the party becomes more divided and there's no definitive candidate past Super Tuesday. As it happens, I disagree with the entire premise (love it! No comments -- got lost in the shuffle of a bunch of other anti-Operation-Hilarity diaries that day). The most telling reason for not wanting to do it is that it would give the Repubs some serious, not-kidding-around, red-meat evidence for their hitherto spurious bullshit about "voter fraud". Never mind that they do that sort of thing, and much worse, themselves.

But I said this was to show you how stupid they are, so here you go: Rick Santorum has been hitting Michigan with robo-calls asking Democrats to vote for him. Thereby completely undercutting anyone blaming dKos.

And then, just this morning, Romney blasted the very idea... which he endorsed a month ago, and says he used to do in Massachusetts, even lying about his party affiliation to vote for the other guys.


Which leads us to today. I will not be voting for either of these yutzes. I'm a Dem, and that's that. For all of his many problems, Obama has also done a lot of good, and is doing better now that he seems to have his head mostly out of his compromises.

But what will happen if Santorum wins Michigan, or especially if he wins both Michigan and Arizona? We're talking some serious Republican Party air-ball. The talk is already beginning that it may lead to a brokered convention, possibly with a New And Sudden Hope Coming Out Of Nowhere.

No idea who. Because the Repubs simply do not have anyone like that. Even the people they've been keeping on the sidelines -- Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, FSM save us all Eric Cantor, whoever the hell else -- are all Same Ol' Same Ol'. Cut spending, cut taxes, austerity for thee not me, immigrant hatred, wimmenfolk are either property or sluts.

The only comfort I'm taking out of this entire mess is that, finally, finally, it seems as if having these sociopathic doofuses on display for weeks at a time, saying whatever crazy shit comes into their heads, has people looking at them and asking themselves What was I thinking?

This entry was originally posted at http://filkertom.dreamwidth.org/1493362.html. You may comment there or here, although LJ tends to have a livelier conversation at this time.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 05:51 pm (UTC)

"The most telling reason for not wanting to do it is that it would give the Repubs some serious, not-kidding-around, red-meat evidence for their hitherto spurious bullshit about 'voter fraud'. Never mind that they do that sort of thing, and much worse, themselves."

I already love you like my favorite brother, Tom, and this confirms it. It's exactly what I've been thinking.

There was one time, years ago, when I briefly considered voting for The Less Electable Candidate in a Republican primary. But only briefly. It wasn't just that it's unethical, and we are not the party of ratf*cking. I realized that I just could not say "I'm a Republican" without throwing up.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:14 pm (UTC)

Actually I routinely vote in the Republican primaries. Usually there isn't a Democratic primary in my area, so if I want any voice, I have no other choice.

That said, I vote for the sanest Republican I can find (not that there's a lot to choose from there, but you do what you can.)

I have considered voting for the craziest one at least in elections that are going to be contested nationally, but what if he actually got into power? I would feel terrible.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 09:17 pm (UTC)

I still think that kind of sabotage may have been one of the factors that got W elected.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:19 pm (UTC)

I did not think either Gore or Kerry were unreasonable candidates.

Or do you mean you thought Bush was the craziest of the Republican field?

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:41 pm (UTC)

I meant something like Dems perhaps voting for W to try to sabotage the repicnicans.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 11:00 pm (UTC)

? I hadn't heard that kind of unethical and foolish behavior was particularly in play at that point.

I would think that Nader's candidacy had a lot more to do with it.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:24 pm (UTC)

Yep, along with massive vote theft (never mind the amazing statistical anomalies in Florida; there were reports of voter suppression in every state, according to an NAACP official of my acquaintance, and tens of thousands of Voters Of A Certain Color prevented from casting ballots in Tennessee, according to someone I knew who investigated down there). I recall the campaign here in Michigan to vote for the "weaker candidate" so John McCain wouldn't get the nomination.

Edited at 2012-02-28 10:26 pm (UTC)

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:46 pm (UTC)

It's sad that the racist KKK wing of the republican party seems to have pretty much taken over. "Moderate republican" is, at the moment, something of an oxymoron.

The reason the republicans are so convinced that voter fraud is a problem is that they do so much of it, so they want to change the rules to favor their own fraud, while blaming the other side.

Sun, Mar. 4th, 2012 04:49 am (UTC)

I'm still annoyed that the Rs got away with ex parte contacts with Katherine Harris.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:18 pm (UTC)

Voting in the Republican primary as a personal decision is something I wouldn't criticize. What I find objectionable is orchestrating a campaign to vote in it just to mess with the election. Only part of my objection is ethical; the other part is that openly announcing an Operation Ratf*ck is certain to be used against you. It's stupid.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:20 pm (UTC)

Granted on both counts.

One would think if the Republicans really wanted a Republican president, they wouldn't mind having Democrats pick the sanest one. Surely such a candidate is more likely to appeal to the undecided middle.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:45 pm (UTC)

The problem is, the Operation Hilarity campaign is encouraging Democrats to vote for Santorum, the craziest candidate.

I'm afraid that the Republican don't care about appealing to the undecided middle. That's why they've been working so hard at voter suppression.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 09:08 pm (UTC)

In Texas, it's not necessary to declare that you're a member of either party to vote in the primary -- only which primary you're going to vote in. Both party primaries are held on the same day, and you have to pick one. So, no fraud involved.

Ethics, now that's another question entirely. But I'd like to mention that in the run-up to the 2000 election, the political signs in our neighborhood were about equally split between Obama and Clinton, with only a lone McCain here and there... until after the Democratic convention, when suddenly all but one or two of those Clinton signs were replaced by McCain signs.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't know if I can actually stomach any of the Republican front-runners enough to cast a vote for them even in the primary, but I'm thinking about it. Thinking VERY hard.

Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:11 pm (UTC)

Yes, and it really pisses me off that the Republicans votef*ck in the Democratic primary. That's how we in Michigan got a Democratic gubernatorial candidate who couldn't win against the odious John Engler, back in the 1990s.

But what it comes down to for me is that I couldn't vote for any of the creatures on the Republican ballot, not even to mess things up for them.