Trigger warning! Now I have Love Plus One running through my head.

I think the money men in the GOP are going to have a hard time trying to sell Romney to the base.

For reasons that escape me, Rick Perry is considered a non-crazy.

Search me why. He’s done nothing in the last few years but pander to the crazies. Absolutely nothing. Perry’s Dickipedia entry barely scratches the surface. The only candidate crazier than Perry is Bachmann.

I’ve got to assume Perry’s hairspray is treated with some Villager-soothing chemical.

Perry panders to the crazies, fer sure.  But he’s more your classic politician in that he answers directly to the corporate overlords.  He doesn’t go all tea-party and defy them…at the end of the day he’ll do what the bidness leaders tell him.

Texas has been sold out to the highest bidder and all the committees and political appointments are stacked with his cronies.  His slush funds survived the budget crunch.  By electing Perry, we’ll have more Michael Browns running FEMAs instead of people who know what they’re actually doing.

That’s why the Republican power brokers like him.

Thanks for that explanation Dewberry. It makes sense. This was something that long puzzled me.

PS: I hear there’s bad blood between Perry and the Bushes. My take is that Junior Bush was such a massive fuck-up that he severed the generations-long Bush influence on conservative politics for the rest of our lifetimes at least. So Junior cleared the way for Perry, I guess. Pfft.

You know, I wouldn’t think Perry could stand up to a national campaign.  But then I didn’t think Bush would either.  Perry’s a fairly wily campaigner.  For all his Ds in college, in many ways he’s a much smoother operator than W.  Oily, smarmy—mainly interested in what’s good for Rick Perry.  He’s kind of an old-fashioned throwback that way. 

So no surprise. He’s a terrible governor who has overseen the evisceration of public education funding and thrown as many kids as possible off their health insurance, all the while shoveling buckets of money to his buddies through things like The Texas Enterprise Fund (slush fund he controls).

He would be a disaster for the US.  So please tell me there’s no way that we’ll elect another useless Texas governor.  Please?

Don’t forget how much the press helped Dubya in 2000.  With considerable hesitation, I’ll recommend the archives of lunatic-savant* Bob Howler for some good real-time chronicling of how the press really threw that game.

Would the press perform the same service for Perry?  And do they have the same power to sway public discourse as they did in 2000?  I sure hope not. The popularity of Stewart and Colbert is encouraging in this regard. But there are still a lot of old folks who vote as a matter of routine; they never got that whole first-think-about-it-soberly-and-responsibly part down, though, so they remain a lurking danger, especially since a lot of those folks are now in a state of anger and fear.  Combine that with bone-deep ignorance, and it’s a worrisome thing to behold.

*h/t BJ commenter eemom.

@ Meep: “Lunatic-savant”—hahaha! About as perfect a description as I’ve ever heard of the Howler.

As to the rest of your comment, I’m worried by the same factors. There are infinitely more purveyors of media narratives today than there were in 2000, but it’s not all good as now we have Fox News operating as a 24/7 GOP propaganda outlet.

Times are a lot more scary now than they were then, so hopefully that very same anger and fear that have the potential to drive people into awful choices would give them pause about the seriousness of their vote in a way that did not exist in 2000, when it could be decided on stupid things like sighing and color schemes and which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with (the teetotaler—go figger!).

However, even the most cursory glance at human history belies that sunny hope…

For all his Ds in college, in many ways he’s a much smoother operator than W

I only know what I’ve read about Perry, but so far he seems to lack even Dubya’s charisma. Perry doesn’t seem like a guy you’d want to drink a beer with; he seems like a guy who’d pray over you if he caught you drinking a beer.

The Texas-sized bag of hair or Mittens are going to get the holy living shit kicked out of them next year.  They’ll be forced to run on Ryan’s Reverse Robin Hood Plan, the primaries will have them speaking economic gibberish by the time they’re over and then they’re going to spend the last 2 months pushing the racial shit hardcore.  It doesn’t matter how many more perpetually pissed off white people they are able to get to show up at the polls.  The minority vote is going to deliver Obama a second term.  And the wails from the TeaBaggers, FireBaggers and our Villager Overlords is going to be deafening.

Perry vs. Obama.  Texan vs. cerebral guy.  I’m having bad memories of Poppy vs. Dukakis and W vs. Gore, with the Village either letting the back-alley mugging take place or joining in the curb-stomp.

Texan vs. cerebral guy.

I don’t know, Steven. Not even the Freepers are excited by another low-brow Christian windbag who’s soft on immigration and mandated sexobiotic injections for all nubile Texan cowgirls.

In a pinch, Conservatives will vote for a RINO just to get rid of Kunta Hussein Mugabe, but not with a ton of enthusiasm. I think it would take a truly concerted media cointelpro effort to make Perry credible versus a sitting Socialist Dictator, and I’m not sure even ratings-cookies will make that worth their while.

he laments the absence of a modern-day Churchill—someone who instills calm and focus and builds consensus.

We already have a guy like that in the WH and they’re running against him as the guys who instill fear and insanity and build chaos.

Perry doesn’t seem like a guy you’d want to drink a beer with; he seems like a guy who’d pray over you if he caught you drinking a beer.

That religious piety is a feature of Perrybot 3.5.  The original model didn’t come with that.

No, Glix. They mean LIKE CHURCHILL. You know. Someone who is ... fair.

Texan vs. cerebral guy.

More like Uncharismatic Texan with Image Problems in his Own State vs. Best Damn Campaigner We’re Ever Likely to See.

Not saying it’d be easy—because the press will give long, loving, slobbery blowjobs to whichever Republican gets nominated—but Obama doesn’t really give bad speeches.

he laments the absence of a modern-day Churchill—someone who instills calm and focus and builds consensus.

Churchill was despised before the War and dumped almost immediately after. If it hadn’t been for the War, we’d be up to our ass in busts of Chamberlain, and Churchill would be remembered primarily as the architect of Gallipoli.

And why do these guys always long for Churchill? Answer — because it would kill them to cite FDR for doing the exact same thing.

Not that I have a hard-on for Churchill. It’s just that Churchill (and lately, Lech Walesa) have become icons for American Conservatives — apparently because they believe that Democrats are Nazis and Communists. Also, to a lesser extent, because Sarah Palin holds the copyrights to Jefferson and Washington.

No, Glix. They mean LIKE CHURCHILL. You know. Someone who is ... fair...white.

Fixed

...I’m having bad memories of Poppy vs. Dukakis and W vs. Gore, with the Village either letting the back-alley mugging take place or joining in the curb-stomp….

I have no idea what’s going to happen, but no one can either Dukakis or Gore this president.  They may be able to trash him in some other way, but Obama (a) got elected already, (b) withstood birtherism, and (c) found and killed bin Laden.  The over-sized helmet pix, or the earth-tones stories, or any such similar wimpish goofiness won’t work. Which is not to say some brand new improved bizarre goofiness won’t be invented.  But I don’t think we’ll see this particular set of nightmares.

Also, Obama’s hair makes Perry’s and Mitt’s look profoundly unserious.  I mean, line ‘em up for a debate and turn on a wind machine.

After whichever hair mosheen wins the GOP primary there will have to be a whiplash inducing tack to the center. A shrewd reelection team will do its damnedest to necklace that candidate with whatever crazy shit he or she had to promise the dons of the Tea Party mafia to secure the nomination.

It probably won’t be Obama himself doing the naming and shaming as he needs to court independents. And you don’t do that by screaming bloody murder, no matter how it might gratify bully pulpiteers.

he laments the absence of a modern-day Churchill—someone who instills calm and focus and builds consensus a nice tidy war against an easily identifiable outgroup that will distract everyone from everything else that’s going on

Provisionally fixed. See 9/11.

Churchill was despised before the War and dumped almost immediately after. If it hadn’t been for the War, we’d be up to our ass in busts of Chamberlain, and Churchill would be remembered primarily as the architect of Gallipoli.

Glad someone mentioned Gallipoli. Fuck that was a waste of life. Churchill was a complex politician who learned over time, and had a vast intellectual life beyond his office. He’d never make it in the GOBP.

@arguingwithsignposts — Well said. I’m totally cool with Churchill. I just hate the way he and Thatcher have become buzz-words for “Reagan,” which itself is a buzz-word that means “many things Reagan never did or believed.”

This might be very good news for Rudy Giuliani.  Or American Select Unity ‘12.  Or somebody.

Almost any Republican candidate seem formidable until they actually enter the race and reality sets in.  It will be difficult for Perry to have any message besides “Let’s do nothing except pray.”  If he were to be honest his message would be “I’m not really proposing anything different than Obama but since Republicans do nothing but obstruct when a Democrat is in the White House you should elect me.”

More like Uncharismatic Texan with Image Problems in his Own State vs. Best Damn Campaigner We’re Ever Likely to See.

Betty’s right but Dana’s take is only one half of the Obambi/naive/just a community organizer/teleprompter shtick that they’ve been running in repertory with fascist/dictator/malcolmX/Kenyanmanchurian candidate etc…

I mean, they’ve always had two Obamas to attack (three if you count Michelle!) one who is a weak, limp wristed fag who even the europeans hate and the other who is an evil dictator who the europeans would hate if they only knew what Amurkans know about this guy.

The story line is ready and waiting.  Its easily counteracted with pictures of a smoothly, calmly, smiling Obama over footage of wreckage in Pakistan and “he got Osama and Trump in one night” in a manly voice over. But don’t look to the Democrats to appeal to voters gut instincts. We are condemned to be the party of sweet sweet reason.

aimai

Also, in re the execrable drew westen piece—it was awful but if anyone thinks that Obama and the Dems don’t have to tell a better bedtime story than the Republicans during this next campaign season they need to have their heads examined.  Storytelling doesn’t help you govern. But campaigning (like writing grant proposals) is all about telling a more convincing and exciting story than the other guy.  You can buy votes, or you can seduce them, but you don’t get them without getting the fuck off the couch and begging for them.

aimai

it was awful but if anyone thinks that Obama and the Dems don’t have to tell a better bedtime story than the Republicans during this next campaign season they need to have their heads examined.

Agreed. The Redoublechins have thrown a nice slow one over the plate and if the Dem pols don’t swing for it they’re baked.

Now I have Love Plus One running through my head.

I dunno—I figure the better question is “what happened to the VOTERS’ passion?” They’re the ones who stand to really lose if Obama doesn’t get re-elected. He can live comfortably off his books, speaking engagements, move to Europe, etc. But I swear, I look at some of the “maybe I’ll vote, maybe I won’t” people STILL harping on the left, even after the 2010 midterm clusterfuck and its horrible aftermath, and think “You guys really are the limp-dicked whiny useless bags of self-pitying weak-sauce fail that the GOP has been talking about for years.” Poor Poor Pitiful Yinz! (Strange can correct me on that usage, I guess.)

Or, they go with the eye-rolling, heavy-sigh “Well, I guess I’ll VOTE for him, but I won’t donate money or volunteer, and THAT’LL SHOW HIM!” (Such maturity and foresight!) Which is about as effective as saying “Well, for the sake of the marriage, I’ll still have sex with you, but I’m going to make sure to just lay there and NOT ENJOY IT!”

Walt Kelly was right.

But I swear, I look at some of the “maybe I’ll vote, maybe I won’t” people STILL harping on the left, even after the 2010 midterm clusterfuck and its horrible aftermath[...]

No doubt. The worst offender on my Facebook feed is an old college buddy who’s now a professor of English. I hope it meant something to him that I pointed out that Republicans want to cut funding for students, arts, AND unemployment benefits.

Walt Kelly was right.

I imagine you mean about “We have met the enemy, and he is us”, but he was also right about many other things. e.g. re: He who is forewarned is forearmed, “but four-armed is half a octopus, and who’d want to be that?”

Churchill would be remembered primarily as the architect of Gallipoli.

Gonna rest on my oar for a second. Churchill was the architect of Gallipoli but it was two admirals and a general that caused the debacle. The Royal Navy was a day away from closing down the straits, in-line with Churchill’s plan, and then Carden was replaced by De Robek and the Navy fled. Instead of forcing the straits while the Turks were preparing to flee leaving a clear and easy victory, the Brits backed off and decided—in a direct contradiction of Churchill’s original plan—to land troops on the peninsula leading to the catastrophe.

Churchill was a lot of things, but he takes an unfair rap for Gallipoli.

Taking Britain back to the gold standard? Fuck up. Attempting to disarm Prods in Ulster and almost leading to an open war between NI and England? Fuck up.

There are plenty of other examples I can’t pull from my memory bank at the moment, but also remember that after being sacked because of Gallipoli, Churchill returned to his regiment and spent 6 months on the front lines on the Western Front.

Humboldt, I guess my meta-thought was that people are unjustly remembered for particular instances, rather than entire histories, and that many historical legacies owe more to context and happenstance than they do to Olympian character traits.

In any event, it’s disloyal and treacherous for an American politician to invoke Dr. Who when Capt. Kirk lives right here. When Palin quotes Disraeli, I’m done.

I am pretty fucking sick of the “He is only a one-term president” meme already, and it’s not even officially the silly season yet.  It’s hard for me not to become depressed and filled with hopeless when I read/hear how Obama has no chance of being re-elected, so thanks for the injection of reality.  I needed it.

I think the Irish Kenyan is toast unless he drafts Hillary for Veep.

I think with Hillary on board he has a much better shot at the independents (which is, of course, all any of this is ever about).

Frankly, I wish some good Democratic governor would launch a primary challenge. I would feel a lot more comfortable with the idea of a former governor.  The left hated Bush and the right hated Clinton, yada yada yada, but at least these guys actually had some idea of how to do the frickin’ job.

Don’t I see a little hypocrisy here? I think any of us would love to be able to get a great haircut like those guys if we could get it for under 20 bucks.

I think the Irish Kenyan is toast unless he drafts Hillary for Veep.

I think with Hillary on board he has a much better shot at the independents (which is, of course, all any of this is ever about).

Don’t spend much time reading online, do you?

Oblomova,

Look, basically there is no real left in this country—even self identified liberals are only 21 percent according to that stupid poll—the Democrats and their advisers can’t have it both ways. Either you need those voters and you have to keep appealing to them through a permanent campaign, or you don’t need those voters and you have to keep appealing to the mythical middle.  At any rate, ifyou need two sets of voters its your job as a politician and a campaign to figure out how to triangulate their desires. 

Obama came in on a wave of support and hope and money. If the voters have lost sight of the big campaign issues, pledges, and strategies that’s only natural. We moved straight from the campaign season to a largely hidden and misunderstood political fight in which Obama and the Dems had to fight against entrenched opposition for every inch.

But even in trench warfare you have to inspire the troops.  If the troops lose faith in their generals and throw down their arms its pointless to stand on the sidelines and bitch and moan about the troops lack of patriotism or big picture vision.  This is what campaigns, and propaganda, and speeches, and all that silly stuff is for: communicating a strategy, explaining the obstacles, and helping every member of the team (voters) understand how they are reaching their goal or at least avoiding disaster.

Dunkirk was a disaster for the Brits but turned into an emotional and public relations coup.  At the time of the passage of the ACA and the extension of the bush tax cuts afterwards this little historical fact kept recurring to me. An ordinary successful politician can make ordinary progress and get credit for it, a great politician can make great strides and get credit for it. But Obama needs to be an extraordinary politician or he will continue to get some good things done but not receive the credit. And he doesn’t receive the credit, in my opinion, because he has not figured out a way/is not willing to demonize his opponents and explain to the voters what kind of a headwind he is facing.  he and his advisors are afraid of looking like sore losers, or weak, or something but that’s just a failure of marketing.  Obama can win this election in a walk if he runs as an underdog and demands the help of his voters.  He’ll lose if his friends keep telling him that the voters are at fault for being confused and disheartened and that they deserve what they get.

aimai

The left hated Bush and the right hated Clinton, yada yada yada, but at least these guys actually had some idea of how to do the frickin’ job.

You’re half right, Amherst. I’m not sure this country will ever recover from the disastrous Bush presidency. (Unless you meant Bush the Elder, of course. He was a sucky president, in my opinion, but not a world-historical fuck-up like his boy.)

Edit to add—Bush I was never governor, so I guess you still (inexplicably) believe Bush II had “some idea of how to do the frickin’ job.”

And he doesn’t receive the credit, in my opinion, because he has not figured out a way/is not willing to demonize his opponents and explain to the voters what kind of a headwind he is facing.

I’m not sure it’s in Obama’s nature to demonize his opponents. Luckily for him, they’re self-demonizing. Will it be enough? We’ll see.

I think when the campaign season gets into full swing, we’ll see Obama out there inspiring the folks on the ground as he did in aught-eight.

I think Amherst’s escaped from Democratic Underground, where if he’d just posted that screed, he’d probably have a hundred recs and a gazillion comments by now.

Hmmm. Sockpuppets. You can’t explain that.

But Obama needs to be an extraordinary politician or he will continue to get some good things done but not receive the credit.

I don’t know how much more “extraordinary” you want him to be. Anyone less than a political genius would have been impeached already.

And he doesn’t receive the credit, in my opinion, because he has not figured out a way/is not willing to demonize his opponents and explain to the voters what kind of a headwind he is facing. 

He has repeatedly cited who and what he’s up against, and each time he is blasted for being weak, whiny and unwilling to accept responsibility. Anger and outrage won’t work. Imperturbability is his strongest suit, coupled with occasional episodes of unCarterish passion.

Obama can win this election in a walk if he runs as an underdog and demands the help of his voters.

Sorry, that’s just nuts.

I personally don’t want to see Obama going heavily negative but I sure as hell want to see lots of surrogates do it for him.  Americans need to be reminded every damned day how badly the Teathuglicans are screwing up the country.  I think a lot of them are getting it now but, sadly, the collective memory is short and the attention span even shorter.  I’m hopeful this will be a big part of the campaign strategy. (And with Debbie Wasserman-Schulz leading the charge I suspect it will be.)

And he doesn’t receive the credit, in my opinion, because he has not figured out a way/is not willing to demonize his opponents and explain to the voters what kind of a headwind he is facing.

As Strange pointed out, he has made his case, with verve and cogency. What’s missing is an honest press corps who are far more likely to behave like 7th graders standing around urging two other kids to fight. They don’t want to argue who started it, who was noble and in the right and who forced a small argument into a backyard brawl. They just want to see the fisticuffs.

The White House has used every modern tool to get its message out, that the message is then ground through a grist mill of sloppy reporting, intrenched special interests and outright bullshit.

Slightly OT, but I think Dana Milbank is working on a column on how the Dow Jones climbed 400 points today because Obama didn’t give a speech today.

For my part, I am working on an Op-Ed in which I show that Obama can inspire his demoralized supporters if he tells us stories backwards, like in Memento or Betrayal.

There are still way too many Democrats who are upset because the Black guy they voted for didn’t turn out to be Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact. Black Presidents in movies tell one hell of a story.

I almost DIDN’T vote for Obama because I was afraid we’d have to endure a catastrophic comet strike. But then I thought, well, there’s McCain-Palin. You can at least rebuild after a comet strike, provided it’s not an extinction-level event.

HB nails it, regarding the press.  The sociopaths and corporate toadies and climbers who rise to the top in the media would make very successful cockfight promoters,  But those top media gigs pay a lot better, and those are legal sources of income.

I’m not sure that, as a group, they “liked” Bush in 2000, although their corporate paymasters certainly did.  But they really disliked Gore, and most of all, they ALWAYS want a good fight.  So when Gore mopped the floor with Dubya in their first debate, that bunch was highly motivated to spin out a completely different story, which they proceeded to do.

Next time there is a flare-up of violence in Baghdad, it would be justice to night drop a bunch of them into the middle of Sadr City.

Michael, I’m afraid your let-down can only be measured in Mega-Daous.

I’m not sure it’s in Obama’s nature to demonize his opponents. Luckily for him, they’re self-demonizing. Will it be enough? We’ll see.

They’re self-demonizing to us, i.e., to people who pay attention, have a point of view, and know bullshit when we see it.  A lot of people get hypnotized by authority, or being-on-teevee, or demagogic cliches, but if you point to Mitch McConnell and say, not “He’s being mean to me” but, rather, “He’s in the service of the ultra-wealthy who are ripping you off,” you can win hearts and minds.  “Demonizing his opponents” needn’t—and in O’s hands, especially—be equal to whining.  You don’t get offended over how they’re treating you.  You get offended over how they’re treating the good, decent, etc. middle-class people of the United Snakes.

Obama has to do that next year whether it’s in his nature or not.  Because God knows they’re going to (continue to) demonize him, and NOT fighting back is what looks (and is) weak.

your let-down can only be measured in Mega-Daous.

Hmmmm, so you’re implying that Obama’s campaign can be saved in ‘12 only if we mint a one-trillion-Daou coin.  I’ll tell Geithner.

Obama has to do that next year whether it’s in his nature or not.  Because God knows they’re going to (continue to) demonize him, and NOT fighting back is what looks (and is) weak.

Mr. Wonderful’s comment has been flagged and forwarded to the moderators. He has also been placed on the Secret List. If you see him again, just act natural. We’ve got this under control.

I’m still leaning toward the surrogate-attack program. An angry Obama is just as likely to frighten Liberals as inspire them.

He has also been placed on the Secret List.

Cool at last, cool at last, praise God Almighty, cool at last.

I’m still leaning toward the surrogate-attack program.

Me too. I thought that was the whole point of picking Biden.

I mean, seriously — and not to labor the point — it’s a hell of a tightrope. A combative Obama would thrill all of us, but that plays into the Conservative narrative that he’s defensive, demogogic and arrogant. Couldn’t he just stand around laughing with his hands on his hips like the Emperor Jones?

I’m watching, Strange, I’m watching.

Unfortunately, “combative” is the right word.  But you could argue that he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.  Anyone willing to call Obama “demagogic” will say it regardless of the facts—he’s many things, but not that—and it’s the same with “defensive.”  “Arrogant” is what one’s enemies call one’s confidence.

So why suppress his ability to rally the troops in deference to those labels, when he’s going to get called “a pushover” and “jello” if he doesn’t?  Especially during an election campaign, in which his supporters’ passion and action are just as important as getting their individual votes?

Look, I’m sorry I banned everybody. My doctor has me on a combination of Fen-Phen and Phen-Fen for my lumbago.

Mr. Wonderful has a point. Obama can’t possibly antagonize the people who already hate him more than they do now, although I’d hold off on the “great vengeance and furious anger” stuff if the GOP nominates Romney or another milktoast who doesn’t motivate the Conservative base and doesn’t fit the “existential threat” mold for Democrats.

If it’s Palin or another nutter, turning it into a cultural war and going the “Mr. Tibbs” route could make sense, especially if the Tea Party is still trying to coattail its way into Congressional and State offices.

I guess my frustration is that it always comes down to the one poor guy in the White House, who takes all the heat and who’s holding everyone else’s fudge. The rest of the Dem party is a clench of damaged caricatures — Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank, Biden, etc., and I have absolutely no hope for Wasserman-Schultz. Sadly, only Hillary has any residual credibility as a national figure, and that ain’t much.

It would be nice if we had a deeper bench, but we don’t.

My doctor has me on a combination of Fen-Phen and Phen-Fen for my lumbago.

Just yesterday my wife described the estranged wife of her brother thus:  “She looks like a skeleton.  Remember Fen-Phen?  She’s on one of the fens.”

Betty, re the supposed “bad blood” b/w the Bushes and Perry, I’ve never bought that story.  I’ve always taken that as a preemptive effort to undermine the “yet another GOP Governor from Texas” attack on Perry by having a “no, actually, there’s longstanding bad blood between the Bushes and Perry ‘cause the Bushes are blue bloods and Perry is a tea partying man-of-the-people” type of defense.

The more interesting story is that Rove is on the outs with Perry, or rather vice versa, or both.  I still don’t quite believe he won’t buckle down and do that Rovian thing he does if Perry’s the nominee (please God no) because winners take it all.  Then again I also can’t quite believe there aren’t any other people out there on the R’s side who have Rove’s special gifts (sheer chutzpah and slavering aggression, mostly).