Mr. wOw: The Decline and Fall of American Politics

Our cantankerous columnist is not amused to witness the degradation of the U.S. political system

Okay — who is more detestable right now? Is it Nancy Pelosi, with her “I have dirt on Newt Gingrich?” Ugh. Good luck with that, Nancy — and did you run this new flash past President Obama? Because it ain’t what Obama supporters expect or want from him. Are those famous beads around your neck cutting off the circulation to your brain?

Or is it Gingrich himself, a frighteningly Napoleonic figure who believes he is a “historian” but is simply a nasty old egomaniac? I hope America never gets cancer — Newt will be out of the house and screwing another country in a minute.

Or is it Donald Trump, who has positioned himself as the kingmaker of the Republican party, the arbiter mediocre, if you please.

Actually, it is the press, who covers Mr. Trump, that gives Mr. wOw severe symptoms of an angina attack. Do any of the pundits who savage Mr. Trump realize he would wither and die if … they didn’t savage him? Trump’s clownish carrying on should be ignored. CNN and MSNBC would be wise never to mention his name again, as he beckons each Republican candidate to come and kiss his ring. They should not take his on-air phone calls (Chuck Todd suffered for that, recently!) Let FOX do what it does — they can’t be stopped, and they are so much better organized than the more liberal outlets. Sorry, they just are.

Trump has dragged the American political scene to old-time lows. He is figure out of the first hundred years of American history — a total blowhard and unrepentant bully who will say anything to heighten his own profile and ingratiate himself with whatever party is in power. The fact that he is not even a politician makes the whole thing more grotesque.

Oh, yeah — I know. I’m talking about him, so I am not taking my own advice. But nobody will take my advice, so why hold back?

I raise three cheers to Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, who have refused to become a part of the Trump “debate” circus. If Ron Paul didn’t have a chance — my vote would be a symbolic waste – and if Huntsman wasn’t a Republican, I might vote for them, on their refusals alone.

Even you Republicans out there — you have to be ashamed and alarmed at what your candidates will do, re: bowing, groveling to Mr. Trump. Is that the president you want? Think about it.

47 comments so far.

  1. avatar Mr. Wow says:

    Mitt Romney has now refused to take part in the Trump debate.  I give him my respect for that. 

    Ms. Bachmann?

    • avatar Lila says:

      Uggggh. Saw a video of a teen asking Bachmann about gay marriage. As in, Why not? Bachmann’s response was stunning in its… um… circular roadblock logic? See, gays can get married, but only to members of the opposite sex, because that is the “law of our land.” Yep, gays have the exact same rights as everyone else! The right to marry someone…. who they have zero interest in whatsoever. Guess that little detail is lost on Ms. Bachmann.

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Lila…

        The problem with Bachmann, is that she can actuallly come across in a normal, intelligent manner–not nearly as crazy as she is, and behaved, last year.  (She has good people controlling her.)   Little and large details are lost on her.  But most politicans have that ability to side-step common sense, and often–humanity. 

        Hardly matters.  She is single-digit.  She won’t be president.  But I’m seeing the possibility of a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket. 

      • avatar O E says:

        As Jonathan Swift said, “Lesser minds unite to oppose genius.” This would define a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket against President Obama. As frightening and doomed as the McCain/Palin ticket was, the GOP continues to look “up” to its most incapable and objectionable leaders, while they eagerly join the pathetic circus that is Donald Trump.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Thursday, 7:52 PM

      Bachmann and Rick Perry have declined the Trump debate.  This leaves Newt and Santorum to be questioned by that fine mind, The Donald. 

      Though she hasn’t been asked, why do I see Sarah Palin jumping in, just for the heck of it?

  2. avatar Daniel Sugar says:

    “The problem with political jokes is they get elected.”

    – Anonymous

  3. avatar chipgiii says:

    The election is over.  Gingrich has way too much baggage and is way too controversial to win over independent voters.  Any politician that panders to Trump is losing my interest.  Hunt, Bachmann, Paul – c’mon no chance.  Romney is the only guy who could win the independent vote.  The problem is he won’t get the hard conservatives to come out.  Result: Obama wins.  The republicans have no one to blame but themselves.  Four years to put together a smart candidate, smart stragedy, and a plan to come together.  And they failed miserably.  For all the talk of rising stars (Jindal, Ryan, Christie) in the republican party, we ended up with the same old thing – not much.  If Gingrich gets the nomination, I will be one of those sitting this election out.

    And Mr. Wow is on target: our political leaders are behaving in dispicable fashion.  School yard kids with their name calling behave better.  I always want to think that regardless of party, at the end of the day America elects the best and the brightest – and at the end of the day those elected seem driven to prove me wrong.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear  Chipgiii…

      From your mouth to God’s ear, but anything is possible in this old world.  President Gingrich.  I have an awful feeling in the pit of my stomach. 

      But maybe after a good breakfast…

  4. avatar Mary says:

    I’m not realy sure of what Gingrich’s agenda realy is.  He could and most likely would win any debate with Donald Trump hands down and pretty much everyone should know that.  Gingrich is not a stupid man, that is not his problem.  He is however a coniving man who had something like 80 some ethic violations while Speaker and was basically forced to step down and I believe that it was Bohner who led him out the door.  I could be wrong about Bohner but I believe that is how it went.  Then the whole time Gingrich was leading the wolves to nail Clinton on the whole Clinton/Lewinsky issue , Gingrich was having his own scandalous affair with his own aid.  That Gingrich is even in the numbers game now is rather surprising to me and says a lot about the mentality of voters.  It doesn’t take much digging to find the man’s history.  Trumps whole issue is still the birther issue which he seems eternally stuck on. 

    Bachman is a totally different species.  She easily could get the religious right vote on the one hand but will lose the intelligiant vote.  I fear her more than Gingrich on any of her morality issues. 

    However, I believe the Republican agenda at this time is simply to confuse people and redirect the real issues.  Could become even more frightening so hang on to your seat Mr. Wow, this whole process is realy just getting started.

        

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Mary…

      And  am holding onto my seat—for dear life!  Gingrich won’t be debating Trump–Trump is “moderating” a debate.  The mind reels.  Hardly surprising Newt was the first to accept.  They are cut from the same arrogant, self-loving cloth, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Trump.

      Bachmann is pretty scary, I agree. 

      • avatar Mary says:

        Yes, you are right, about Trump/Gingrich debate, I mis spoke on that, but still, what a notion.  Kind of like the blind leading the deaf.  

        Can you even picture a Gingrich/Bachman ticket??  Have mercy.  Gingrich will swiftly end all food stamp programs, unemployment will stop and Bachman will pray for us all while ending all gay rights, woman’s rights to abortion and who knows what all.  We certainly will have a lot to be on our knees about.  

  5. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    The vast majority of Americans don’t vote. Seems like the majority of Americans know it’s a waste of time. Like I like to say, the only Democrats and Republicans in this country are the fools who believe there are Democrats and Republicans on the ballots. None of them serve the American people. They are all hookers who work for the tips that are left on the nightstand at the bordello we call Congress. 

    Once again we are faced with “helping the middle class” and once again the Democrats will claim they “traded off” the payroll tax for the tax cuts for the rich. Just as they did with the unemployment benefits. And they will join the Republicans in cutting “entitlements” for our poor and elderly to pay for the payroll tax just as they did to pay for the unemployment benefits. Instead of cutting the tax cuts for the rich. Claiming that the rich create jobs.  They haven’t created too many jobs in the past ten years. And probably won’t create too many jobs in the coming ten years.   The middle-class must pay for it all. Not sure what they think they will do once the middle-class no longer exists. I suppose they will finally just get rid of “entitlements” for the poor and elderly in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich.  The rich really don’t create jobs. But they do leave nice tips.  And the hookers do love their tips. 
    Welcome to the late, great United States of America.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Baby…
       

      Wonderful insights, as usual. 

      You know, I write only to receive the responses of my intelligent, tuned-in readers.  I learn so much.   

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        I sometimes am very intelligent and socially conscious. I sometimes am not. At the moment I am far more interested in how much loot the loot pulls in on Monday at Christies. Like someone once put it, the Wife of Bath after she collided with a Brink’s truck. Several Brink’s trucks.  I still suspect the biggie will be the Krupp diamond.  Which is the Krupp diamond despite anyone saying it is the Elizabeth Taylor diamond. After the auction it will be the Krupp-Taylor diamond. The only other “Taylor” diamond is the 69 carat one Burton bought her which was named the Cartier-Taylor diamond. Cartier actually bought it but Burton wanted it so bad he offered a little more to buy it from Cartier.  He agreed to let them display it and agreed that it would be named the Cartier-Taylor diamond. Not all diamonds are named. They either have to have historical significance or be spectacular by clarity or color when they are cut and sometimes they are named by the company that owns it or by the jeweler who cuts it or it takes the name of its first owner. If they so choose. Most don’t.  Most don’t want to attract attention to their owning a diamond that is worth millions.  At auction, howevr, when they die, it is given their name.  The Krupp diamond was already named. So “Taylor” will simply be added to it with a hyphen. Someone in the entourage apparenlty doesn’t know these things. Apparently no one at Christie’s does either. it will be known as the Krupp-Taylor diamond due to the historical significance of its two owners.  I think it will go for at least $10 million.  Let’s hope Donald Trump doesn’t buy it. It would eventually become the Krupp-Taylor-Trump diamond. Too horrid to even think about. 

        I will not comment further about Donald Trunp. Or about the Michael Jackson bracelet. Now we’re naming bracelets as well as diamonds. Christie’s ain’t what it used to be…

      • avatar Pdr de says:

        I recently sold my house in the Midwest (it sold in three days with two bids – miraculous) and moved to Virginia. I’ve been trying for four months to find a family doctor. Three didn’t accept Medicare patients, the 4th sent a form I was required to sign saying I’d pay for whatever procedures and tests Medicare didn’t approve of (which could cost thousands of dollars a year). I couldn’t sign it. I’m still looking for a doctor so I can have my mammogram and a colonoscopy – I’m having problems but you can’t make an appointment to see a specialist or have a mammogram without the request being made by a family physician.

        Obviously, we senior citizens are the most illness prone of the entire population and are therefore a constant drain on our nation’s dwindling money. I predict, with the grim, heartless, self-serving attitude of many of the Tea Party Republicans, that there will come a time when we will be required to follow in the footsteps of the Native Americans and Eskimos who, when they were too old to make a contribution to the tribe any more, would go off somewhere (into the woods or onto the ice), sit down and wait to die. Perhaps it will even be suggested that they be helped along…cyanide? A bullet in the head?

        Just read this morning that Deutch Bank sent the sheriff over to evict a 83 year old woman and her 102 year old mother from their home in Georgia. When the sheriff saw the old lady lying in her bed he refused to evict them. The daughter was so distressed at the prospect of being thrown out on the street with her sick mother that she collapsed and had to be taken to the hospital. Oh yes, belatedly, when the story hit the news, the bank said they would find some way to leave the two women in their home.

        Money is God in this country – the wealthy can’t get enough and if the weight of the country’s woes continues to be exclusively borne by the shrinking and clearly suffering Middle Class, so be it!

        I’m appalled at the support given to candidates who clearly want to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid rather than make the millionaires and billionaires and corporations who never pay a penny of taxes, pay their fair share. Seems like it’s a little like shooting oneself in the foot to elect these people. Funny how many ordinary people get elected to the Congress and the Senate and years later they are millionaires themselves. Methinks a lot of tomfoolery goes on “under the table” in DC; rewards are given, bribes taken and the hell with one’s fellow Americans.

        I’m glad I’m old. I’ve never been so discouraged nor felt so heart sick at the greed, corruption, crime, lack of morality and human concern that is “in our faces” every day.

    • avatar Lila says:

      Oh, Snooks, guess where I had lunch yesterday. With some staffers on Capitol Hill. Guess what our conversation touched on. Well, lots of stuff, including the way that Congress likes to demonstrate belt-tightening measures by cutting everything and everything that does not affect THEM. They will be happy to cut Soc Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal benefits and pensions, and even their own dismally low-paid staff salaries… but oh, no, Heaven forfend that anyone actually vote to cut Congressmen’s pay, benefits, or pensions. Why, darlin’, that’s just too hard to do! And this is exactly why Americans see them for the hypocrites that they are. They decide what the rest of us will or won’t have, but those rules DO NOT APPLY to them.

      Perhaps the next Constitutional amendment should require that Congress shall make no law pertaining to the citizens of the United States, that it does not equally apply to themselves, nor shall they make any law nor create any benefit pertaining to themselves, that does not equally benefit all citizens of the United States. That should sharpen the focus a bit.

      • avatar O E says:

        Lila and Baby Snooks, your posts should be obligatory reading for every voter in this country, regardless of party affiliation. The people need to put a stop to the corruption endemic to Congress that seems to be highly contagious because it takes no time at all to change those elected to Congress who campaign with apparent honesty and become part of the herd once they are in office. If all members of Congress were subject to the same rules they dish out to the common man and woman, only candidates with the people’s and the country’s interest in mind and heart would run for office.

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        Not all Americans see them for the hypocrites that they are or they wouldn’t keep voting for them every two and six years.  We have representatives who have been in Congress for 18 yers or longer. Because they are the Republican or the Democrat and no one in their own party will dare to challenge them and the Republicans won’t vote for a Democrat and the Democrats won’t vote for a Republican.  So they vote for the incumbent. Simply because of the little (D) or the little (R) beside their name.  Sometimes holding their nose while they do. 

      • avatar Lila says:

        We have GOT to get us a grass-roots movement to elect anyone without that (R) or (D), by write-in if necessary.

  6. avatar Mark Rowe says:

    Let us understand that our government is no longer a government for the people. To many politicians today do not mean all of us when they say “the American People”!
    We must remember that our country is based on the gun. We keep our place in the world with it, we keep our country in line with it. And we started our country with it. Our for fathers killed and broke away from it’s country because of the same thing that is happening to us now. It is no wounder that our government is scard of it’s people. So much so that it now controlls our news media, which use to be the peoples watch dog.
    So let us not forget that Newt was speaker of the House and a main part of the bunch that put us in the bad place we are in now, so only the stupid ones and the ones who wish to support the downfall of our country, support him!
    If one looks at the Sr PResident Bush, and the fact that he went from being vice President to beng the head of the CIA, and then to the President. And the fact that when his son was in office it was the CIA that withheld the information that made 9/11 possable. One can see why the jr president Bush was seen shortly after walking hand in hand with the king of saudi arabia.
    We  have lost a war, but gained the job of other countries!
    Ben Laden had 9/11 to tear down America’s econemy. He has succeded with the help of our government. So the big question is, who’s side are you on?

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Mark…

      I am afraid that our government hasn’t been “for the people” for about…200 years. 

      And even then, wasn’t it always about the individual power of our leaders and the overweening clout of partisan control? 

      • avatar Lila says:

        Mr. Wow, you are so right: Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution contain even the phrase “for the people.” There is a lot of “by the people” but that refers to representatives elected by the people. And “the people” that the Constitution originally had in view was: white male landowners.

        But this is where folks like Bachmann, with her convenient excuses about “the law of the land,” have it so wrong. The beauty of the Constitution is that it is a living document whose text can be changed, and whose interpretations can be changed by legal precedents and rulings on Constitutional Law. As our society has evolved and especially as education and communication have become near-universal, the public has become more insistent on principles based in social realities. It lags, and it wavers, but the general motion has been forward. When the public really makes demands, political survival sometimes depends on giving in.

        Alas, the ugliness of those who would hold power over others (as opposed to, you know, serving the people) is what we have been dealing with from the start, and thanks to the nature of those who typically run for public office, it shall ever be so. But still! We are a nation of laws, and sometimes things do go right…. ask ex-Gov Blagojevich, or Nixon…

        I get so infuriated with our politicians, but remain somehow an optimist after all.

        PS, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” comes from the Gettysburg Address. If there is an earlier origin, I am not aware of it.

      • avatar Mark Rowe says:

        Hello, Mr. WOW.
        You are right, but in the past the ones in power knew that there power came from being in controll of the people there in power over. And in order to keep that power they needed to take care of there people by careing for the ones who were less able. This is what made America strong is the fact that Americans took care of the less able Americans. But today we no longer have that. Instead we have bratt’s, like the jr president Bush that are in controll and who was not tought what is right and what is wrong. So now they care only for themselves, and don’t care for there fellow American’s. Kinda like the no deposit no return cars we have today. You know, stick gas in it and drive it.
        America today is falling because there are to many half Americans. To many people have got to put a religon, race, color, ect., in front of the term American. We even have to many people in political office that have duel citizenship. So just who’s side are they on?
        I cannot help but feel that our country has been taken over and is still being drained of everything they can get there hands on.

  7. avatar Count Snarkula says:

    Donald Trump is the political version of a Kardashian.  A famewhore is a famewhore is a famewhore to paraphrase Gertie Stein.  If you want my thoughts on Rick Santorum I encourage you to google his name right now!  XOXO

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Count..

      Why don’t you give us your thoughts on Mr. Santorum right here? 

      • avatar Lila says:

        Count, OK, I Googled it but didn’t find any articles or blogs written by Count Snarkula. The top hits were… uh… fairly self-complimentary… oh, wait. Third and fourth hits down. Ewww. Got it.

        Is that true??

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      Count!  Forget the Lalique fishes. If they’re there. There’s a lot that isn’t there. Including some jewelry. Maybe theyr’re going to have an “Odds and Ends” sale at Butterfields. But there is this little canary diamond I didn’t know she had. About 33 carats. I forget the lot number. Probably go for a million. You raised a million for her. Now you can raise a million for her children! I have a friend who has a friend at De Beers. I’ll have it named the Count Snarkula diamond.  I need something to wear around the banana planation in Costa Rica you know. 

  8. avatar Dan S. says:

    There is a certain segment of the voting population that will never be okay with Barack Obama being our president. He could single-handedly cure cancer, put this country financially back in the black, bring about world peace and make contact with an benevolent, advanced alien race that gives us technology that brings the world back from the brink of ecological disaster and makes every human comfortable and happy and these people would still curse his name. There have been many discussions of the motivations of these people, but it’s my personal belief that it’s racially motivated. And while the number of these people isn’t game-changing, it is significant. But they caused President Obama to make a terrible mis-step when he first took office: He mistakenly thought that he could somehow win over these people and he spent a good chunk of his early presidency trying to get them on his side – quite the futile proposition. By the time he snapped out of that delusion and was willing to start actually working for the public that voted him into office, he had a Republican congress that has been determined to hold him hostage at every opportunity. When he actually had power, he squandered it and he has now found himself in a position of having to fight tooth-and-nail for compromises that are back-breaking to his good intentions.

    But I can’t see any of the Republican contenders beating him in a general election. The Republican party has entered a stage of evolution where they’re severely handicapping themselves. The party has aligned itself with a group of people known as “Evangelicals”, who, like the Obama-haters, aren’t a majority, but are still significant in number. Some would even argue that there’s a non-coincidental overlap in those two groups. But as the name implies, these Evangelicals have a heavy-handed belief in Evangelical Christianity. They believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible (though I would argue this, considering that they don’t, say, stone their children to death for misbehaving) and they strongly and loudly support candidates that espouse their beliefs. And the Republican party has found its fate so bound to theirs that it has to cater to them at all costs. And as it turns out, “all costs” is a pretty big cost. Because while their beliefs work all well and good within the party, the second you open up that speculation to the general public, the reaction is generally a raised eyebrow. The result is this: in order for a candidate to win in the Republican primary, they have to proudly and loudly state that they believe (and will fight for) a lot of bat-shit crazy things. They have to say the evolution is wrong and that the world is only 6,000 years old. They have to say that homosexuality is an affront to God. They have to say that Christians are the only people who should count and that all laws should be made at the expense of everyone else. It doesn’t matter if the candidate actually believes this stuff, but they have to stump as if they do with total conviction. But in a general election, that sort of rhetoric simply doesn’t fly. Most people, including the vast majority of Christians, want a president who embraces reality, who looks at data and tries to create real-world solutions. Not a president that adheres to a set of beliefs that are definitively and demonstrably not true.

    When your candidate pool consists of people like someone who literally prayed for rain and took no real-world measures against a drought (a prayer that wasn’t answered, btw), a guy who wears special underwear because his religion tells him to, or a woman who says it’s her duty to submit to her husband’s every demand and wish. Wouldn’t the husband be running the country? At least if you follow that logic through to its conclusion and Bachmann won the race, the US would have its first gay president – a point that I’m sure Log Cabin Republicans would dispute. But even the people that try to seem reasonable seem crazy-by-association in that race to the White House. And that’s a big hurdle to jump.

    • avatar chipgiii says:

      Dan,

      “There is a certain segment of the voting population that will never be okay with Barack Obama being our president. He could single-handedly cure cancer, put this country financially back in the black, bring about world peace and make contact with an benevolent, advanced alien race that gives us technology that brings the world back from the brink of ecological disaster and makes every human comfortable and happy and these people would still curse his name. There have been many discussions of the motivations of these people, but it’s my personal belief that it’s racially motivated”

      Interesting post.  The above I would argue could have been said about any prior president: Bush for certain; FDR by most standards was considered a great president, but was also hated; Reagan was considered at least a good president, still hated by many.  I think when people are at ideological odds, to justify that it is illogical and therefore racism is a stretch.  Had FDR, Reagan, Bush done all the magnificent things you described, there would still be those who hated him. 

      Here’s a little secret:  most republicans are not Evangelicals, and most are just like democrats they consider themselves Christians, but probably that’s about as profound as it gets.  The Bible belt is a bit of an exception, but that’s an exception for both parties (conservative dems).

      I agree that the republican party will probably not have a win this general election, and it is because they are trying to figure themselves out:  many are not thrilled with this really to the right group, and many of the really to the right group are not thrilled with the more centrist republicans.  I think that the dems have the same problem with the far left and just left of center dems.  But the dems are not nearly as separated right now.  I do expect the Obama enthusiasm to be down some, but not enough to not elect him.

      “They have to say the evolution is wrong and that the world is only 6,000 years old. They have to say that homosexuality is an affront to God.”  Most of us republicans don’t believe that the earth is 3000 or 6000 years old.  We get science, carbon dating, and 100 million years or more.  And contrary to popular belief most of us support gay rights.  I am a 10 year veteran of the military who had to check on my enlistment papers back in the 70′s that I was not a homosexual, but if you asked me even back then if I thought a gay person had a right to serve, unequivocally YES.  The media tends to define all republicans as a mirror image of some of the extreme right evangelistic….just as some define all democrats as far left socialist…

      If you read your post, you have stereotyped republicans into a few basic but defined categories.  Most republicans I know fit into none of those….

      • avatar Dan S. says:

        I knew that post would probably come across as more antagonistic than I intended it to be. I considered trying to clarify some things a bit better, but that would have meant adding more text into something that was already larger than I wanted it to be.

        In truth, I don’t think there is nearly as big of a gap in our viewpoints as there may seem to be. We seem to agree that there are a core of people who will always hate President Obama no matter what he does. It’s my personal opinion that race plays a part in that, but there is plenty of room for speculation where the cause is concerned. And I also agree with you that there are other presidents from the fairly recent past who had a group of people that seemed dedicated to villifying them. President Bush (Jr.) and President Reagan are fine examples of that. But it wasn’t my intent to imply that there’s this sort of hatred for Obama that no other president has ever experienced, and as I said, there’s plenty of room to speculate as to why. But that paragraph was more of an indictment on President Obama. President Bush and President Reagan did something right that President Obama did wrong: They served the people that voted them into office and didn’t waste time pointlessly trying to aquiesce to that group of people that were never going to support them.

        As slanted as my original reply may have seemed, I don’t even know that our views on what makes a “Republican” are fundamentally different. I’m registered as an Independent and would have no qualms voting for a Republican if I agreed with his/her stance on things. I work a job that puts me in contact with a large number of Republicans on a daily basis and I can say that if my own experience is any indication, the vast majority of Republicans nice, decent, well-meaning people. I should repeat from my original reply that most Republicans do not identify themselves at Evangelical. I think a lot of Republicans look at their current options and cringe a bit. The majority of Christians don’t even define themselves as Evangelical. The problem isn’t that the Republican party believes a lot of crazy, Evangelical things: The problem is that while the Evangelicals may be in the minority, they’re also the ones that are far more likely to vote in primary elections (thus deciding who wins in the primaries), contribute large sums of money to their candidates of choice, and be the most vocal in their rhetoric.

        I’d say that the Republican party’s problem is that they’re being mis-represented by a vocal, powerful minority.

        Something to keep in mind here is that the church in Chicago that President Obama was attending while he still lived there was not a soft-serve “as long as everyone’s nice to each other” sort of church: It was the fire-and-brimstone “if you don’t believe exactly like us, you’ll burn in Hell” sort of congregation. It would have required President Obama to believe in stuff just as crazy as the current crop of Republican candidates believe. But the Democratic base wasn’t as beholden to a group of people where that would have been important. That wasn’t a bunch of crazy beliefs that any sort of voting Democrat was going to demand from him. Of course, the other side of that coin was the paranoid conversation that he was some sort of secret Muslim looking to inflict Sharia law on us. Upon reflection, who did that speculation make look crazy?

      • avatar chipgiii says:

        Well Dan,

        I agree.  I am also a bit like Belinda mentions, mad.  I see no candidate from on the Republican side that entice me to go to the polls.  I do disagree with President Obama’s approach on many things, but there are some I agree with.  Right now I hear a lot of lip service from the Republicans, but no really new ideas…..I honestly cannot recall a worse group of reps in a long, long time.  There are some really sobering thoughts posted here today.  I just gotta believe things will get better!  And if Obama can do it, I am just fine with that – I just don’t see it; sadly, I don’t see it from the republican side either. Maybe I need to lower my standards! 

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Chipgiii…

        I think the same thing.  And then I think—”Whoa!  How much lower can you set your standards, Mr. Wow?”

        I am sad.

      • avatar Dan S. says:

        When President Obama was running for this first term, one of the tools he could always readily use was “I’m Mr. Not-That-Other-Guy” and it’s starting to look like he can make that more central to his platform this time around with greater effect. His appeal to the American voter could simply be “Even if you’re not happy with some decisions I’ve made as president, you have to admit that I’m more appealing than those crackpots that are jockeying for position to run against me.”

        Rick Perry did himself no service with his latest 30-second ad. The Internet is already rife with spoofs of it that are far more entertaining. You see that sort of thing and you’re like “They’re just doing it to themselves.”

        It’s a sad truth that the skill set that it takes to get elected to the presidency is a completely different skill set from the one that it takes to actually be a good president. And not only are they different, but they often seem mutually exclusive. It seems like a broken system. Much of our ancient heroic literature made a point that we often still believe today: The people who strive for power are generally the people that are least deserving of it.

        One big problem there seems to be the “us or them” mentality that blooms from a two-party system. So we toss that system, right? It reminds me of a scene from the fourth book of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy series called So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish. A spaceship lands in London and a giant robot steps out of it and says “I come in peace. Take me to your lizard.” This leads to a verbal sparring match in which the Earthings finally sort out that he’s of a race of giant robots, but their leaders are lizards, which the robots elect to office. Someone smartly asked “Why don’t you vote robots like you into office?” The logical response that was given was “If I vote for a robot, the wrong lizard might get elected.”

  9. avatar Belinda Joy says:

    If I were a Republican, I would be spitting mad at the candidates I would have to choose from to run against President Obama. And the worst part is, this did not have to happen.

    You can not tell me there is not an open minded, embracive man or woman in American that considers themself to be a true conservative BUT understands American is made up of Gays and straights, rich and poor, Blacks, Whites, Middle Easterners, Latinos, Asians  and Native Americans. Educated and uneducated, young and old. Someone that SPEAKS to all these groups not just the small but vocal ones. The ones that rhyme with Pee Hardy. :-)

    That person is out there. But for some reason has chose not to step forward.  Everyone Monday morning quarterbacks about how to run our country, but few of us step forward to actually run to take office. Its not about money, if you have support, the money will come. No, I would argue more people don’t run to become president because we all realize it is not an easy job. You have to have a huge ego and strong sense of self to run for president. The problem is, ”we” fault those that are like this once they run.

    I am liberal, to be sure. However, its not just lip service for me. If the candidate speaks to MY concerns, I will listen. The problem from the Republican candidates is they aren’t doing that. All I’ve heard is divisive language about how my race is essentially lazy. Gay Americans have mental conditions that can be treated and then they’ll be straight. Latinos should be blocked from American. The rich are to be thanked for providing our jobs therefore don’t tax or touch their money. College students are poor by choice. The list goes on and on. It’s just sad.

    P.S. My Dear Mr. Wow, I hate to do this to you, but I told you Sarah Palin was not going to be our next President. :o ) You and I had an exchange on certain threads about this and you cautioned me not to think that way because she had enough of a following to pull it off. Well my dear, what you are looking at on the right right now is a panel of Sarah Palin’s. Not gonna happen. President Obama will be relected, as long as he is up against any of the current candidates! :-)   Although there is a small part of me that wanted to see Cain remain in the run. That would have all but assured an easy win for Obama!           

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Belinda…

      I was wrong about Palin. I think.  So that makes about one million things I’ve been wrong about in my life. 

      Except for B.  I was right about him. 

      BUT..we shall still see, re Obama being relected.   I hope so.  I’m voting for him.  But my heart is already in my throat.

      Oh, and you didn’t hate to do it at all, Belinda.  I see you smiling!

      • avatar Belinda Joy says:

        ROFL, yes Mr. Wow….I am smiling!

        I’m sure you heard the collective “Awwwww….” in regard to your comment about B. To use one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies  – Bridges of Madison County  

        (In regard to your love for B) ”This kind of certainty comes but once in a lifetime”  

    • avatar Lila says:

      Belinda, I think the nature of politics, especially in the last 10 – 15 years, has driven out most candidates with any kind of real public-service ethic. Muckraking, mud-slinging, criticizing their children, digging up whatever dirt can be found practically back to birth, or making it up if there is nothing sufficiently juicy… who wants to put up with that?

      So what are we left with? Hubris, stupidity, power-grabbers, limelight-seekers, who have not given all that much consideration to just what their duties will be like if they actually do win an election. I would like my president to at least have a three-digit IQ, but I don’t see a lot of examples in the Repub lineup.

      I will give Palin this much credit: she is smart enough to know that it is much easier to criticize from the sidelines, than it is to actually be the responsible party.

    • avatar chipgiii says:

      <b>If I were a Republican, I would be spitting mad at the candidates I would have to choose from to run against President Obama. And the worst part is, this did not have to happen.</b>

      That is so right it hurts the hair on my head.  They, republicans, are here at the 11th hour with zero.  No electable candidate, no smart strategy, zilch……I really thought that some reasonable smart person with a plan would surface.  There are a few, but for whatever reason they are not surfacing.  Maybe politics have gotten so vile, sane people no longer want to run is right.

  10. avatar ann penn says:

    Ah, Mr. W.

    Are you aware that Ron Paul, if elected, would do all he could to overturn Roe v. Wade?

    We women have fought long and hard for the rights we have. Before the mid-1800′s there were no laws in the US against either birth control or abortion – truly it was a matter of choice. Abortion began to be outlawed because it usually resulted in the woman’s death in days when germs had yet to be “discovered” by Lister.

    Now we have those who claim to want to return to the “original” laws of the land, but make an exception when it comes to this basic right of women to choose their own reproductive destiny.

    I am one who has experienced a life threatening (though planned and wanted) pregnancy, at a time when I had to be close to death before action could be taken, which was damaging to my general health. So I do take this issue very seriously.

    Right now there is a war on women’s rights going on, let by the so-called Christian right and the church of Rome (who don’t seem to be risking their tax exempt status despite active lobbying).

  11. avatar Mr. Wow says:

    Dear Ann…

    Of course I know that.  And that, among other issues, is why I wouldn’t vote for him.  I was just admiring his anti-Trump stance. 

    Believe me, the very idea that women have to fight for the control of their own bodies—as if having a baby is some minor event–makes me crazy with anger.  And I’m a guy. 

  12. avatar Daniel Sugar says:

    Mr. W,

    Speaking of bodies – I had a SCAT scan – they found an Ella Fitzgerald CD.

    D.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Dr. Sugar…

      We’ll have to cut it out of you dear–to stop all that obscene babbling/scatting. 

  13. avatar Jon T says:

    As ridiculous as this whole turn of events is, I can still find a small consolation in the fact that the ongoing debacle of these debates makes the Republicans look sillier at every turn. Palin lowered the candidate bar to such a degree that a complete overhaul may be the only thing to save them at this point. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, maybe this could force them to seriously consider a more reasonable, middle of the road kind of Republican candidate. The old model no longer appears to be doing the trick.

  14. avatar Deirdre Cerasa says:

    And now after another 15 minutes; Trump cancels the “debate”. He is such a (fill in whatever you like). I wish he would just go away. Probably too much to ask for, sigh…

    • avatar O E says:

      To our dismay, Trump is not going away. He may be a bufoon, but not a complete idiot. The only reason he has reared his ugly head is because “The Apprentice” is coming back in January and Trump is using the GOP circus as an avenue to promote his “reality” show. Get it? He’s out there, he can pout his way into hyperbole about politics while promoting his lousy show. Trump being Trump: self-serving at every and any opportunity. I’m glad to see that not all GOP candidates take him seriously. I wish the media would act as wisely and stop giving him face time or even mention him. And Baba Wawa deserves a spanking for being one them who drools over him. “Fascinating” indeed! Someone give her a dictionary…

      • avatar chipgiii says:

        O E,

        Your post is so right it is scary – scary that anyone pays attention to Trump, particularly the media….