If his JO dreamgirl, 'Tits' Palin, can't win, Kristol doesn't give a shiat.

I think subby is right about Kristol being wrong about Obama being right for 2012.

/amirite?

Kirstol is only upset because none of the candidates hold any allegiance to his group. They aren't true believers in his version of neo-conservatism, and most importantly, they are all really, REALLY f*cking stupid. They are drunk frat brother stupid. The kind of stupid that redneck comedians use to get laughs out of their audience because the character is stupider than the audience. The type of stupid that makes kids with real learning disabilities talk slow to them.

fark, based on Kristol's track record, this means Obama doesn't have a chance.

Bill Kristol can never apologize enough for what he's done to the United States and very likely the entire world.

He should be declared an un-person and his name should become a curse for all time.

He is one of the more despicable people on the planet. I vote that he shut the fark up.

I'm surprised Bill still has a job.

Kittypie070: Bill Kristol can never apologize enough for what he's done to the United States and very likely the entire world.

He should be declared an un-person and his name should become a curse for all time.

Throw Mama From the Train wasn't that bad..


It's not like he paved the way for a corporate takeover of the concept of public discourse..

Bloody William: fark, based on Kristol's track record, this means Obama doesn't have a chance.

He's still wrong in calling it. It's too early, too many things could change. Maybe Joe Biden will get in a bar fight. Or California will have an earthquake and float away. Or the economy could tank again.

So the link brings me to a picture of Obama, with no Kristol article. I assume this hasn't come up until now because NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR WHAT KRISTOL HAS TO SAY. *deepbreath*

LouDobbsAwaaaay: His job is to push the narrative that is best for the GOP, and right now the GOP cannot possibly win with the candidates (and platform, and ideology) that they have tied themselves to.

When your own personal Baghdad Bob starts to second-guess you, you're in trouble.

They intentionally run the worse of their party (which means alot of people need to be put into the potential GOP candidate spotlight), lose badly in 2012, then run the more sane people of today (Huntsmann, etc) in 2016 and claim that they cleaned their party up and are ready to be serious. Basically make themselves look good in 2016 by comparison. All they did was take their crazies out of the spotlight and hide them. They don't drop their crazies, of course; they just make it harder for people to see them.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

PanicMan: Or the economy could tank again.

This is the most realistic scenario (not just of what you suggested, but of all the bad-for-Obama scenarios). Republicans are certainly trying everything they can to make that happen so they can blame Fartbongo.

Who is Obama going to lose to? Romney, the guy even his own party doesn't like? Perry, who is just W without the brains. Cain, the guy who ran a second rate pizza chain and doesn't know that China has nukes. Bachmann? Santorum? Gingrich?

Honestly, who stands a chance again Obama? The hard part was becoming president in the first place. Winning a re-election is pretty much a given unless the party itself is split. Carter lost because Kennedy damaged him too much in the primary challenge. Bush Sr lost because Perot took some of the Republican votes.

If the GOP wins the senate it won't matter who wins the presidency, so there's that.

Kome: PanicMan: Or the economy could tank again.

This is the most realistic scenario (not just of what you suggested, but of all the bad-for-Obama scenarios). Republicans are certainly trying everything they can to make that happen so they can blame Fartbongo.

There's a whole year. Almost anything could happen.

Bloody Bill cannot fap to Cain. That's all this means.

Why all the hate for Bill Kristol? He's not so bad.



His plots, schemes, goals and agendas just run utterly contrary to the best interests of Americans, is all.

I really thought never being right once in life would have slain this human garbage golem.

jake_lex: The problem for the Republicans is that they have a pack of morons and/or kooks running against Obama.

I have to say, I think their problems run deeper than that. Even within the GOP field there are candidates that are less moronic/kooky who have almost no support (Huntsman). Romney's numbers aren't improving at all, because the GOPers don't think he's conservative enough. If there actually is a large segment of the Republican electorate that is more moderate, that cringes when they hear the crazy stuff that Cain, Perry, and Bachmann say, why aren't they speaking up? The longer this sideshow goes on, the more I think the problem with the GOP lies exclusively with their voters.

Phil Moskowitz: I really thought never being right once in life would have slain this human garbage golem.




I'm sure glad his father isn't alive to see this thread.

moralpanic: Who is Obama going to lose to? Romney, the guy even his own party doesn't like? Perry, who is just W without the brains. Cain, the guy who ran a second rate pizza chain and doesn't know that China has nukes. Bachmann? Santorum? Gingrich?

Honestly, who stands a chance again Obama? The hard part was becoming president in the first place. Winning a re-election is pretty much a given unless the party itself is split. Carter lost because Kennedy damaged him too much in the primary challenge. Bush Sr lost because Perot took some of the Republican votes.

Exactly. If anything the GOP is the party that might be split. If Romney ends up getting nominated, and a derper like Bachmann ISN'T his running mate, the Teapartiers might just try to run an exceptionally far-right candidate on their own, which would split the party vote. On the other hand, if a derper ends up on the ticket, the GOP won't be split, but no moderate citizen will vote Republican.

As far as I can see, they're in a lose-lose situation. Their best bet in the long run is to nominate a crazy for 2012, take their lumps, then use that as an excuse to jettison the derp brigade from the party and start over with intelligent/moderate conservatives.

foggie froggie 2011-11-06 12:31:13 PM jake_lex: The problem for the Republicans is that they have a pack of morons and/or kooks running against Obama. I have to say, I think their problems run deeper than that. Even within the GOP field there are candidates that are less moronic/kooky who have almost no support (Huntsman). Romney's numbers aren't improving at all, because the GOPers don't think he's conservative enough. If there actually is a large segment of the Republican electorate that is more moderate, that cringes when they hear the crazy stuff that Cain, Perry, and Bachmann say, why aren't they speaking up? The longer this sideshow goes on, the more I think the problem with the GOP lies exclusively with their voters.
================================================================

Even moderate republican voters seem to be of the notion that they'd rather take a bullet to the head than ever even CONCEIVE of the notion of voting for Obama, despite that the man is simply a moderate republican.

Whether that's because of Faux Noise, whether that's because he's black, whether that's because they're extremely partisan, I don't know. Maybe it's all three.

But, thankfully for us, the EXTREMELY far-right republicans (everyone but Romney and Huntsman) do turn non-primary republicans off. We saw it last year with O'Donnell and the gal in Nevada.

So if the republicans are dumb enough to nominate a Cain or Perry, expect an utterly amazing destruction.

Kome: PanicMan: Or the economy could tank again.

This is the most realistic scenario (not just of what you suggested, but of all the bad-for-Obama scenarios). Republicans are certainly trying everything they can to make that happen so they can blame Fartbongo.

Their only flaw in that strategery of theirs is that almost anyone with half a brain (and who is not a member of the set of voters who decided on 5 Nov 2008 that they would absolutely NOT vote for B. HUSSEIN 0bama in 2012 under any circumstances) can not only see how the GOP is deliberately sabotaging the economy, but will blame THEM for it instead of President Obama.

/that, plus the fact that the GOP is pandering exclusively to that set of voters I described above

moralpanic: Who is Obama going to lose to? Romney, the guy even his own party doesn't like? Perry, who is just W without the brains. Cain, the guy who ran a second rate pizza chain and doesn't know that China has nukes. Bachmann? Santorum? Gingrich?

Honestly, who stands a chance again Obama? The hard part was becoming president in the first place. Winning a re-election is pretty much a given unless the party itself is split. Carter lost because Kennedy damaged him too much in the primary challenge. Bush Sr lost because Perot took some of the Republican votes.

That's two questions. Who could beat Obama and who could het the nomination?

Huntsman and Roemer(sp?) could have a chance in a general election, better than the clowns above. But the GOP will never give either the nod.

Romney obviously is the best to take on Obama, he should be, he's spent the last 4 years preparing for this, but again, he can't even get his own party to like him. If the base doesn't like him now, wait till Perry and Cain dump in $30M of negative ads on him. Romney has flipped-flopped on EVERY issue.

This is probably the worst thing that could happen to Obama's reelection chances.

Bloody William: fark, based on Kristol's track record, this means Obama doesn't have a chance.

thatsthejoke.jpg

Obviously nobody in this thread actually clicked through and read Kristol's column. You'd think you guys would have realized by now that RawStory is about as credible as the Drudge Report. He doesn't even remotely concede the election. The part quoted in the blog post:

2012 isn't going to be another 1980. The reality seems to be that we're not going to have a chance to replay that election."

The entire quote:

2012 isn't going to be another 1980. The reality seems to be that we're not going to have a chance to replay that election, with (at least in the hazy glow of retrospect) a compelling conservative leader of long standing but ever youthful, a man who stood tall and spoke for us and for America, riding gracefully to victory over the GOP establishment in the primaries and over decadent liberalism in the general election. Assuming the presidential field stays as it is, 2012 won't be a repeat of 1980.

Which is not to say that 2012 can't be a good, even a very good, election for conservatives and for the country. There are other models for victory. In 1992 an incumbent president was soundly defeated by an impressive though flawed candidate who emerged from a weak field, after leading lights in his party refused to run (Cuomo, Bradley, Gore, Gephardt). Bill Clinton doesn't provide a model of successful governance for the next Republican president-the next president is going to have to lead, not accommodate-but he does suggest another, less elegant model than 1980 for the defeat of an incompetent incumbent.

enry: moralpanic: Who is Obama going to lose to? Romney, the guy even his own party doesn't like? Perry, who is just W without the brains. Cain, the guy who ran a second rate pizza chain and doesn't know that China has nukes. Bachmann? Santorum? Gingrich?

Honestly, who stands a chance again Obama? The hard part was becoming president in the first place. Winning a re-election is pretty much a given unless the party itself is split. Carter lost because Kennedy damaged him too much in the primary challenge. Bush Sr lost because Perot took some of the Republican votes.

That's two questions. Who could beat Obama and who could het the nomination?

Huntsman and Roemer(sp?) could have a chance in a general election, better than the clowns above. But the GOP will never give either the nod.

Please. I like Huntsman as much as anyone, but the fact is neither of these guys could charm their way out of a paper bag. There's a reason they can't crack that tough 2% line, even when independents are polled, despite (at least for Huntsman) tons of exposure in debates to the others.

This nominating contest is over, and has been for weeks. Romney is the nominee, and like it or not he has a great shot against Obama with this economy. The big question in this election is going to be turnout, and a lot of that comes down to volunteers and the ground game. Will enthusiastic liberals volunteer and donate en masse to Obama as they did last time? Will minorities and young people turn out for him again? Do evangelicals and other "family values" conservatives hate Obama enough to turn out for Romney? These are the questions that will decide this election.

That little silk bikini brief wearing mutherfarker is always wrong about everything.

oren0: Obviously nobody in this thread actually clicked through and read Kristol's column. You'd think you guys would have realized by now that RawStory is about as credible as the Drudge Report. He doesn't even remotely concede the election. The part quoted in the blog post:

Oh thank God. If Bill Kristol had actually said something favorable about Democrats, I'd have to reevaluate my entire worldview. The desperate flailing you mention is way more in line with my expectations. This is the man who spawned the "this is good news... for McCain" meme, after all.

HMS_Blinkin: Exactly. If anything the GOP is the party that might be split. If Romney ends up getting nominated, and a derper like Bachmann ISN'T his running mate, the Teapartiers might just try to run an exceptionally far-right candidate on their own, which would split the party vote. On the other hand, if a derper ends up on the ticket, the GOP won't be split, but no moderate citizen will vote Republican.

As far as I can see, they're in a lose-lose situation. Their best bet in the long run is to nominate a crazy for 2012, take their lumps, then use that as an excuse to jettison the derp brigade from the party and start over with intelligent/moderate conservatives.


This is true. They could fail in 2012, then use that failure (and the rage they built up) to do a massive culling of the Republican Party and give the illusion of rebuilding it in order to try for 2016. But there is one serious problem:

They're trying to alienate the only people who would vote for them.

One of the greatest mistakes the Republican Party is making is a complete failure to see reality. That crazy base isn't a rogue faction. It is the ENTIRE BASE of the party. The Republican leaders are trying to minimize the damage, but it's pretty obvious from 2010 that their marketing as worked so well that Republican voters are having trouble detaching themselves from the party. Most of the people who are the most rabid Republican supporters are the same people who need to be detached from the party.

The Republicans are in a very bad spot right now. They thought the Democrats moving to the right was good. But the Democrats have been picky on what they took on that move. All the shiat: the 'social conservative' bullshiat, the bigotry, the insane paranoia of fanciful thinking, that's now the Republicans' bread and butter. Those people who are funding the party, working for the party, they're the ones who now OWN the party. The only way the Republicans would be able to ditch their base and still remain a viable political party is to make some deal with moderates, and that seems unlikely since they have done everything under their power for the past few decades to basically be assholes.

The Republican Party is dying. And the Democrats (especially Obama) can smell it. The credit rating was a very big sign that the Republicans were in serious trouble, but this has been going on since they started dicking over people during the Bush Administration. The inability to gain the Senate in 2010 was another big sign.

The current Republican Party is only being held together by media sycophants. They're going to be in damage control for the better part of this decade. They really have no place to go. If the Democrats successfully court the corporations, there is no Republican party anymore.

Obama is essentially a Republican who also happens to be pro life, so it's ridiculous to hear people like Bill Kirstol claim he is an "incompetent incumbent" since he basically enacts policies that Republicans previously liked but now pretend to hate.

This is what most people would call minimally observant. The irony is that the GOP does have candidates, like Huntsman, that might have broad appeal in the general election. Thankfully, they're DOA in the republican primaries.

Bill Kristol is part of a particular mindset within the Republican party that howls and whines endlessly when things are not done precisely 100% his way. If you're not picking the candidate he happens to favor then you're doing it completely wrong and you will never win.

He tends to favor the Christie type of Republican, rather than a hard line conservative, and it's not because the hard line conservatives don't win... It's because they do win that he doesn't like them.

So, and no I'm not kidding, Kristol is the kind of person that would rather see Democrats win than have a Republican that he doesn't like win.

Any idiot with half a brain should be endorsing Obama. Not-news is newsworthy.

Sabyen91: Bloody William: fark, based on Kristol's track record, this means Obama doesn't have a chance.

He has finally realized that he has to predict things he doesn't want to happen so they turn out the way he wants

Because Kristol didn't predict landslide congressional victories for the GOP in 2010.

/ rolls eyes

Fail in Human Form: This is what most people would call minimally observant. The irony is that the GOP does have candidates, like Huntsman, that might have broad appeal in the general election. Thankfully, they're DOA in the republican primaries.

I love how liberals assume that more liberal equals more electable. Even in moderate states like NH, or in states where independents can vote in Republican primaries, he can't crack double digits. I like Huntsman, but he doesn't have the charisma to get votes.

It's interesting to hear Fark Democrats speculate as to Republican inner thoughts ("they secretly support Obama, as would any right-thinking people!"), but only interesting insofar as it's hilariously wrong. So here's a minority report from an actual GOPer:

Republicans have a lot to oppose Obama for. He's not a "moderate conservative." He's a left-leaning Democrat, forced into middle-of-the-road positions not by pragmatism but by the realities of governance. Che Guevara couldn't govern any further from the left than Obama does; there's not enough popular or legislative support.

The problem with the Republican Party is its voters. Legislators are constrained by a base too enthralled with ideology and orthodoxy. Compromises made in the best interest of the nation (e.g. TARP) are punished - even conservative legislators like Bob Bennett have to fear primary challenges. Competent governance slowly becomes impossible in this environment, and eventually, it isn't even a goal; it's subordinated to soothing egos and stoking grievances.

The best outcome for 2012 is for Obama to win decisively over a far-right kook (preferably Cain), killing the Republican meme that "we don't win because we're not far enough to the right/we didn't present voters a clear alternative/etc." This is not to say that Obama deserves re-election. He doesn't. But better that than the continued degradation of the Republican Party.

whidbey: Any idiot with half a brain should be endorsing Obama. Not-news is newsworthy.

It's not about endorsements, it's about math. Obama needs to win 12 red-leaning swing states to have a second term. (new window) Democrats shouldn't allow themselves to be lured into complacency.