Max

I've always maintained that Obama would win against Romney. But, you should be careful what you wish for, because Chris Christie--a man even I despise and who liberals will find far worse than Romney--is going to win in 2016 once Barry gets his additional four years. Rpman, if you read my words carefully, you will note that I "suggested" that you thought I was childish (as opposed to you actually stating I was childish). To prove my point, I bring up this following remark that you made on November 4, 2011: Believe me, I would be thrilled if you never discussed politics with me again.

Carl, it's definately true that the intensity of the JFK worship has gone down over time (and I expect the same thing to happen to Reagan twenty years from now as well), as fewer and fewer people remain that were alive during his presidency. (I really appreciate you sharing that article, because I can't recall a liberal ever trashing JFK before.) Still, you have folks writing "inspiring" biographies of JFK, such as Chris Matthews. And I have seen recent public opinion polls rank JFK, Reagan, and Clinton among our greatest presidents, right in the same league with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I believe that having one or two affairs is not as bad as having dozens of them. And Roman, I never said that Ike's affair "was just one of those silly little things" and that his affair shouldn't be brought up because he was a "crazy old lark." (So please don't put words in my mouth.) It's really funny that you suggest that I am childish when you are hardly a paragon of maturity yourself.

MO voters certainly screwed it up when they elected Claire McCaskill to the Senate (even you have been very critical of her). That affair was reprehensible. However, there is a difference between having a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer. Also, I don't seem to recall Ike being worshipped by millions many decades after his presidency ended. (Besides, many liberals often say that Eisenhower is their vision of what an ideal Republican should be, so I am sort of surprised you attacked him.)

This is so true, Alphanguy! And Eisenhower would never have won if he wasn't a WWII hero.

I understand your point, Carl. (And thank you for answering my question.) I just think that issues of personality and "likeability" play such a huge role in presidential politics, and on these scores Romney fails miserably. For whatever reason, most voters want a president they can "relate to" and "connect with" (and quite a bit of Santorum's personal story can be used for his political advantage). Soapsuds, I'd agree with you if you are also referring to Obama as well. Are you?

I agree that's potentially a major problem; it's just that Romney seems to have even worse drawbacks. I was amazed that Santorum had the political skill to twice get elected in a Democratic-leaning state like PA while still being in the thick of those culture issues (whereas Romney ran as a liberal in order to win in MA). Carl, do you believe that Romney would still make a better candidate than Santorum?

Alphanguy, this is so true. It is just such a shame that whenever new evidence comes to light regarding what a scumbag he truly was, he always remains Saint Jack. Carl, I apologize for my rudeness, but I believe that MO was the only beauty contest of the three. I'm not saying that I'll vote for Santorum in the primary, but I am really starting to believe that he would be a stronger general election candidate than Romney (though both have a slim chance of defeating Obama). The sad fact of the matter is that presidential elections are merely personal popularity contests (which explains how Bush won twice). To just about every voter, Romney is completely unlikeable, and the liberal media never fails to portray him as cold and calculating. Of course, it doesn't help that he has a history of making stupid statements that can easily be taken out of context. Furthermore, Romney seldom brags about his personal life; he should be constantly pimping the fact that he gives 17% of his income to charity (compared to the 1% Obama gives) and that he stood by his wife during her battles with MS & breast cancer. (Of course, it is very rude for one to brag about oneself, but the Obama folks never fail to emphasize just how "likeable" and how much of a "family man" their candidate is.) On the other hand, Santorum can present himself as likeable and relateable. He can constantly tout (as he has be doing) his working class roots in western PA. Also, he has a compelling family story (with one child who died two hours after birth and another who is severly disabled). (Apparently, swing voters care more about personal "stories" than a candidate's positions or qualifications. And, of course, Romney's story is a completely boring one.) Furthermore, the base actually likes Santorum, and would actually turn out to vote for him. (Romney is completely despised by the base. If somebody has appeal to independents--like Huntsman--then this wouldn't be much of a problem. However, Romney pretty much appeals to nobody.) Furthermore, because Santorum is not insanely rich, the Democrats can not run their 99% vs. 1% class warfare bullshit campaign if he is the nominee. In a general election, Santorum's biggest negative would probably be his past homophobic comments. Yet, I doubt that Romney--who has also been trashed as a "homophobe" on this very thread--would do any better in the LGBT community. There's also the problem that Santorum lost his last election by 17 points. However, the huge size of that loss can be attributed to two factors: (1) his opponent was named Bob Casey, Jr. (whose late father was one of the most popular politicans in PA history) and (2) he was running for a thrid term in 2006, which was a huge Democratic wave year. (Romney chose not to run for a second term as MA governor in 2006 because he knew he would lose badly.) Regardless of whether you hate Santorum even more than Romney, I just have a hard time seeing how anyone can make a case that Romney is the stronger nominee. Over the course of this campaign, Santorum has made far fewer blunders. I am sorry if this analyis offends anyone, but I really think it might be the objective truth.

While other presidents have had affairs, I kind of doubt that most were womanizers to the extent JFK was. Scotty, asking me why I singled JFK out is a very valid question. The reason I did so was because he has been so hyped up and overrated far beyond that of any other president (even Reagan). Its not just is presidential accomplishments that have been grossly overstated; the myth still persists that JFK was a man of morals and character (witness a recent biography written by Chris Matthews, which the author said was an "uplifting" story).

Alphanguy, I wasn't sure if the sexual relationship was legal or not, so thanks for clarifying the matter. (I still think it was morally reprehensible for a 45 year-old man--in a position of authority--to be taking advantage of a 19 year-old intern for his own pleasure. It was also very hypocritical, since JFK always portrayed himself as an upstanding family man.) I assumed (incorrectly) that age of consent laws likely mirrored voting laws (and, of course, the official voting age was 21 to vote until 1971). However, as reflected in my comments, I was never 100% certain if the affair was illegal, since having the right to vote (or not having it) at a certain age doesn't always equate to other rights: for instance, one still has to be 21 to purchase alcohol, and somebody 18 years-old could serve in the armed forces even before 1971.

I was just wondering when so many millions will stop worshipping this man and recognize him for the scumbag he was. Also, I believe that the age of majority back in the 60s was 21; thus, given that this intern was 19, the affair may very well have been illegal. The fact that she didn't cash in back then says a lot about her character. Actually, according to the article I posted, it wasn't until 2003 until the public was even aware of her; that year, a JFK biographer mentioned that he had an affair with "a tall, slender, beautiful 19-year-old college sophomore and White House intern, who worked in the press office." Since she was "outed" involuntarily, I am assuming that this intern chose to write this book to tell her side of the story.

It appears that JFK--liberal icon and undoubtedly the greatest president we've had over the past 65 years--had an 18 month affair with a White House intern. http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3

IMO, that is what news reporting should do. (The article also reminds us of how bad the recent tragedy at sea was.) Just let the facts speak for themselves (without editorializing), and the man will be viewed in a negative light.

Carl, here's an article from CNN (which you and others have accused of having a conservative bias) that hardly paints Priebus in a positive light: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/29/priebus-obamas-our-capt-schettino/

Well, everybody on the left cheered when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter. Some liberals even suggested that he had previous knowledge of 9/11. And Carl, it doesn't appear to me that most in the media are nodding along. Rather, this RNC Chairman's comments are being portrayed in a negative light. And while Obama did in no way compares to that cruise captain, the fact of the matter is that he has done some extraordinarily insensitive things (while so many are out of work), like when he held an "Alice in Wonderland" themed Halloween party in 2009, or last year when he threw himself a star-studded 50th birthday bash. It's funny, though, that the "conservatively biased" media still goes out of its way to portray Barry as such a "likeable" person even after acting like such a prick. (Meanwhile, the "cold and calculating" Romney was constantly at his wife's side as she battled MS. Thus, because the liberal media has inaccurately portrayed both men, I have zero doubt that Obama will win the election.)

I used to think that having a divisive primary meant certain doom in a general election. However, the Democratic experience in 2008 put that theory to rest.

This was such a humilating defeat for Romney. The biggest reason why he did so poorly was because he had terrible debate performances. (Also, while anti-Mormon prejudice didn't cause his loss, I do believe he would have had a modestly better showing if religion wasn't an issue.) And for whatever reason, SC GOP voters were duped into all the Gingrich "I'm a victim and deserve forgiveness" bullshit. The only thing that is a mystery to me is why Santorum did so terribly, given that he has a message that resonates with the religious right (yet doesn't have any personal skeletons in his closet). If Romney loses FL, I seriously doubt he can win the nomination. (This is very worrysome, given that FL Republicans voted for Rick Scott in 2010.) I do think that there is a possibility that a brokered convention (where no candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination) could be a good thing for the GOP, because it could result in a compromise nominee that is far stronger than Romney.

I forgot to add the other big story of the day: it turns out that Santorum actually won IA (by 34 votes)! All my predictions regarding IA were correct (and as I previously stated, I am often wrong on my predictions). Romney seems to be sinking fast in SC, although I really don't know who will win that primary. As long as both Santorum and Gingrich both stay in the race, however, I don't see how Romney can lose the Republican nomination.

Good riddance. Regardless of one's political views, it is undeniable that Perry ran the worst campaign out of any of the 2012 contenders. That's because (after being hyped by the far-right as the next Ronald Reagan) he was leading in the polls the moment he entered the race in August, but then continuously dropped after those horrendous debate performances. His campaign was over the moment he said "oops." Though Perry didn't have much support at the end, this is obviously not good news for Romney, as the far-right vote will be less fractured. (I honestly don't think his endorsement of Gingrich will mean anything, though.) I must say that is was odd that both Huntsman (who was the best choice for president) and Perry dropped out in mid-stream (they looked foolish by not waiting until at least the next contest) ; ususally, a candidate withdrawls the day after doing poorly in a primary or caucus. I know that a huge deal was made by the Bush campaign and the right-wing media outlets (like FOX News and The Wall Street Journal) over that comment, but I don't recall the vast majority of the media condemning Kerry for that gaffe. If anything, the mainstream media tried to suggest that it was proof that Kerry understands "nuances" (and is thus better equipped for the presidency) unlike the "simplistic" Bush who only sees things in black and white.

Of course I realize that Obama knows there are 50 states. I was just upset about the huge double standard that the "conservatively biased" media has whenever a Republican makes an embarassing gaffe versus occasions when a Democrat (and Obama in particular, since he has been the ultimate media darling since he first became famous in 2004) makes one.

I see some folks have really gone into overdrive trying to save face for Obama's 57 state comment. (By the way, even if there were 57 primaries and caucuses, that still doesn't explain his error, given that he suggested there were three additional states he did not visit; by the reasoning provided by some above, one would thus assume Obama was referring to a total of 60 contests.) The major reason why I made such a big deal about this whole thing was because holy hell broke loose when Dan Quayle (who, in contrast to Palin and Bachmann, is not someone who views ignorance as a badge of honor) misspelled "potato." The way the Democrats and the media acted was that this mistake alone made Quayle unfit to serve as dog catcher.

Huntsman will drop out tomorrow and endorse Romney. While this is sad news, it was the right decision to make as the former Utah governor had to do much better in New Hampshire in order to have any chance to win the nomination. The only thing that surprises me is that Huntsman did not drop out on Wednesday, instead insisting that his chances were still good. (In my opinion, this about-face seems very strange on his part.)

I do believe that (had AW not been cancelled) it was the plan for Anne to be Frankie. I know I am in the minority, but I liked Cass even more with Lila than with Frankie. AW really cannot be blamed for the lack of veterans returning for the finale. That's because only about 1.5 months elapsed from the cancellation date to the final day of taping. (The actual finale aired about a month after it was filmed.)

At a 2008 campaign event in Oregon: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EpGH02DtIws" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I realize, Roman, that only "idiots" like Bush are supposed to make mistakes like this, and not your beloved Obama. (To be technically correct, however, Obama actually indicated that there are 60 states, since he had yet to visit AK, HI, and another state.) I can't imagine the s#itstorm the "conservatively biased" media would have made if Quayle or Palin made such a remark.

His saying that he likes to fire people was taken totally out of context. But, since these bullshit political games are going to be played, I guess it's OK for the GOP to take Obama's comment that "we've gotten a bit lazy" out of context as well (and generalize it to mean that Obama feels all Americans are lazy). And what about Barry's comment that people who live in rural areas "cling to their guns and religion"? I guess this must mean he feels he is so superior to the people who live in such places. I guess Romney (who knows there are 50 states in the union as opposed to the 57 Obama thinks we have) is the only candidate who says foolish things.

This f*cking sucks. Though I am not at all surprised, Huntsman should now drop out. There's just no spinning this horrendous showing. I have explained earlier why Huntsman (despite popular belief) is more conservative than Romney. The fact that he failed to campaign this way in a GOP primary is astounding.