Dead Presidents
By Anthony Bergen
E-Mail: bergen.anthony@gmail.com
musings-of-a-genius Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
No. I said that Romney should choose Paul Ryan as his running mate long before he actually picked him and I still think Paul Ryan was the very best Vice President that Romney could have chosen.
If I was running Romney’s campaign and I had 100 chances to make changes that I thought would result in a win, I would have picked Paul Ryan as his running mate all 100 times. Win-or-lose, Ryan was a solid choice for VP. The Republicans should second-guess a lot of things, but that’s not one of them.
Anonymous asked: How much would you pay to be able to laugh at Mitt Romney tonight and keep reminding him about how much he lost by? Good riddance to you Mittens.
Just because I voted for Barack Obama doesn’t mean that I want to see Mitt Romney destroyed, or even hurt. I don’t agree with Governor Romney’s politics, but I don’t wish him ill and I certainly wouldn’t disrespect him.
This is the problem with American politics — Americans like the person who asked this question. They are on both sides of the aisle and they are equally horrible for our country. Last night, I found no glory in the fact that Mitt Romney lost; instead, I was hopeful and happy that Barack Obama won. I didn’t go to the polls to vote against Mitt Romney; I was there to vote for Barack Obama.
Much like John McCain four years ago, Mitt Romney went out with class last night, and he deserves our respect. I have never thought that Mitt Romney was a bad man. I thought Obama would be a better President, but there was never any hatred on my part for Romney. We can disagree with his politics or the way he campaigns, but there is no reason to look at Mitt Romney as a villain.
Yes, Governor Romney is incredibly wealthy and was probably out-of-touch with “average Americans” like you and me. But with all of that money, Romney could live a life of leisure and never have to work at anything again. Instead, what did he do? He devoted himself to public service. There’s no question that he loves his family and has a great relationship with them. He spent a significant amount of time in a leadership role with his church — not just by sitting in a pew every Sunday but by taking a leadership role where he gave up time to help the families and people of his community. Saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, serving as Governor of Massachusetts, running for President in 2008 and 2012 — none of those things were token jobs where Romney was a figurehead that got the credit while others did the work. They were all challenges that Romney tackled with hard work and, in each instant, he “left everything on the field”, as he said in his concession speech last night.
Make no mistake about it — running for President is one of the most difficult, exhausting, and thankless journeys that an American can take. Everyone who runs for President makes tremendous sacrifices, and nobody seeks the Presidency because they are bad people who want to do harm to the United States. Candidates for the Presidency like Mitt Romney — win or lose — are patriots. They have a vision for this country and the passion to put themselves on the frontline. To serve all of us.
Laugh at Mitt Romney? Taunt him? No, I would thank Mitt Romney. I’d tell him that I may not have cast a ballot for him, but that I appreciate the sacrifices he made in order to try to move our country forward. I’d admit that I disagree with his politics, but that I respect his beliefs and admire his passion for going after what he felt was right. I’d tell him that I know last night was probably one of the most difficult experiences of his life, but that he conceded with class, he demonstrated a remarkable work ethic throughout the campaign, and that I hoped that my fellow Democrats would have offered their support of him if Obama had lost as seamlessly and earnestly as he offered his support for the President during his concession.
We cannot and will not bridge the divisions in this country if we continue to be ugly towards each other. Politics alone will not take us where we need to be. There must be some magnanimity, some cooperation, some compromise between all of us — from the President and the Congress to the State Governors and Legislatures, and right on down to you and me and our neighbors. “Politics” and “compromise” are dirty words because we drag them through the mud along with anyone connected to those ideas. That has to stop. It has to stop between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it has to stop between the talking heads on cable news networks, and it has to stop with people who anonymously leave messages on blogs encouraging a celebration over the heartbreaking defeat of someone who put everything on the line to serve his country. Celebrate Obama’s victory, not Romney’s defeat. Congratulate Obama and his supporters, but don’t hesitate to appreciate Romney’s work ethic and devotion to service.
We are at our best when all of us — or at least the largest majority of us — are moving forward. We are at our best when we remember the first word in our nation’s name is “United”. The idea of a constant conflict pitting Democrats vs. Republicans where one side must win and one side must lose is not progress. It’s Civil War without violence — but not without casualties. As someone who knew something about Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, once said, “Let us have peace.” We should follow General Grant’s advice and add, “Let us have progress.” With peace and progress will come prosperity for all of our people.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
Just because I voted for Barack Obama doesn’t mean that I want to see Mitt Romney destroyed, or even hurt. I don’t agree with Governor Romney’s politics, but I don’t wish him ill and I certainly wouldn’t disrespect him.
This is the problem with American politics — Americans like the person who asked this question. They are on both sides of the aisle and they are equally horrible for our country. Last night, I found no glory in the fact that Mitt Romney lost; instead, I was hopeful and happy that Barack Obama won. I didn’t go to the polls to vote against Mitt Romney; I was there to vote for Barack Obama.
Much like John McCain four years ago, Mitt Romney went out with class last night, and he deserves our respect. I have never thought that Mitt Romney was a bad man. I thought Obama would be a better President, but there was never any hatred on my part for Romney. We can disagree with his politics or the way he campaigns, but there is no reason to look at Mitt Romney as a villain.
Yes, Governor Romney is incredibly wealthy and was probably out-of-touch with “average Americans” like you and me. But with all of that money, Romney could live a life of leisure and never have to work at anything again. Instead, what did he do? He devoted himself to public service. There’s no question that he loves his family and has a great relationship with them. He spent a significant amount of time in a leadership role with his church — not just by sitting in a pew every Sunday but by taking a leadership role where he gave up time to help the families and people of his community. Saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, serving as Governor of Massachusetts, running for President in 2008 and 2012 — none of those things were token jobs where Romney was a figurehead that got the credit while others did the work. They were all challenges that Romney tackled with hard work and, in each instant, he “left everything on the field”, as he said in his concession speech last night.
Make no mistake about it — running for President is one of the most difficult, exhausting, and thankless journeys that an American can take. Everyone who runs for President makes tremendous sacrifices, and nobody seeks the Presidency because they are bad people who want to do harm to the United States. Candidates for the Presidency like Mitt Romney — win or lose — are patriots. They have a vision for this country and the passion to put themselves on the frontline. To serve all of us.
Laugh at Mitt Romney? Taunt him? No, I would thank Mitt Romney. I’d tell him that I may not have cast a ballot for him, but that I appreciate the sacrifices he made in order to try to move our country forward. I’d admit that I disagree with his politics, but that I respect his beliefs and admire his passion for going after what he felt was right. I’d tell him that I know last night was probably one of the most difficult experiences of his life, but that he conceded with class, he demonstrated a remarkable work ethic throughout the campaign, and that I hoped that my fellow Democrats would have offered their support of him if Obama had lost as seamlessly and earnestly as he offered his support for the President during his concession.
We cannot and will not bridge the divisions in this country if we continue to be ugly towards each other. Politics alone will not take us where we need to be. There must be some magnanimity, some cooperation, some compromise between all of us — from the President and the Congress to the State Governors and Legislatures, and right on down to you and me and our neighbors. “Politics” and “compromise” are dirty words because we drag them through the mud along with anyone connected to those ideas. That has to stop. It has to stop between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, it has to stop between the talking heads on cable news networks, and it has to stop with people who anonymously leave messages on blogs encouraging a celebration over the heartbreaking defeat of someone who put everything on the line to serve his country. Celebrate Obama’s victory, not Romney’s defeat. Congratulate Obama and his supporters, but don’t hesitate to appreciate Romney’s work ethic and devotion to service.
We are at our best when all of us — or at least the largest majority of us — are moving forward. We are at our best when we remember the first word in our nation’s name is “United”. The idea of a constant conflict pitting Democrats vs. Republicans where one side must win and one side must lose is not progress. It’s Civil War without violence — but not without casualties. As someone who knew something about Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, once said, “Let us have peace.” We should follow General Grant’s advice and add, “Let us have progress.” With peace and progress will come prosperity for all of our people.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
Oh, I’d say right after then-Texas Governor George W. Bush kicked his ass something fierce during the 2000 Republican primaries. In 2000, McCain got his hopes up because the whole “maverick/Straight Talk Express” stuff worked nicely in New Hampshire, but that shit didn’t play down South, especially once the Bush campaign got nasty. McCain may have spent five years being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison camp, but he wasn’t conditioned for the monumental beatdown he took in South Carolina courtesy of Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.
It wasn’t anything for anyone to be proud of — in fact, the Bush campaign did some repugnant, borderline (if not outright) racist things and played to the worst fears of the historically reactionary South Carolinians, but it was after that 2000 South Carolina primary that John McCain realized what it took to win his party’s nomination.
Plus, John McCain is a 76-year-old man and you’d probably be cranky, too, if your plane had been shot down and then got the shit kicked out of you so regularly for five years at the Hanoi Hilton that you can’t raise your arms above your head. Physically, it’s obviously an issue. But think about the emotional scars of always having to be the “M” when you and your friends do the Village People’s “YMCA” at karaoke. (Too soon?)
On top of all that, just imagine that you are John McCain. Really, imagine it. You are John McCain and you wake up every morning and look in the mirror and think about all of the adversity you overcame. All of the things I mentioned earlier — the war injuries, the lengthy time as a POW, the personal attacks. You have moved forward and leaped over many of the obstacles you faced. You bounced back from the disastrous 2000 Republican primaries and, despite your age, became the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee — winning that nomination so much more easily than anyone expected. You stand at your mirror thinking about how far you, John McCain, have come — how much you’ve grown. Look at what you’ve accomplished! Look at what you’ve become!
And then it begins. It begins with a single, solitary tear rolling down your Dr. Evil-looking head. That tear is followed by heavier, old-man-tears; thick, watery globules of sadness and loss. You’re breathing heavily, gasping for air because you are so overcome by a constrictive feeling that you’ve learned is a potent mixture of shame and disappointment — as if the chemicals and tissues that make up who you are have taken on a life of their own and decided to try to strangle you where you stand. What you are doing can only be described in one way — sobbing. You, John McCain, are sobbing. The tears falling and the pained moans seemingly escaping from the depths of your broken heart cause you to hyperventilate. You must sit down, splash water on your face, close your eyes for a few minutes. You try to control those emotions with the breathing exercises you’ve been taught. Sometimes it takes two-to-three hours for you to leave your bedroom. Sometimes, it seems as if nobody will be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, so you just pull the heavy, black velvet curtains over your bedroom windows and sleep.
But you will wake up, John McCain. And you’ll go into your bathroom and look in your mirror, and it will all begin again, just as it does three or four times a day. Your lip will quiver, your hands will shake, those ever-present tears will rush to flood your eyes, and you’ll scream at yourself, “WHY DID YOU NOMINATE HER? YOU BLEW IT! YOU FUCKING BLEW IT!!!”
And that might explain what’s happened to John McCain — why, in between the tears and the gasps for breath, you hear him angrily mutter the words “Hockey Mom” and “Fuck Alaska”. If after a lifetime of service, when you were making your bid for the White House, and you stupidly nominated Sarah Palin to be your Vice President…well, you might be cranky, too.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
With his victory in 1860, Lincoln was the first successful Republican candidate for President. John C. Frémont was the first Presidential candidate nominated by the Republicans, but he lost the 1856 election to James Buchanan.
Prior to becoming a Republican, Lincoln was a Whig and that’s the party he was a member of during his one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. Lincoln’s ties to the Whig Party included major loyalty to Henry Clay and Zachary Taylor. In fact, two of Lincoln’s most well-received speeches prior to becoming a major national figure were eulogies to those two Whig leaders — a eulogy for President Taylor in Chicago two weeks after Taylor died in office, and a eulogy for Clay in Springfield, Illinois.
It’s time for the main event of the evening and the most important speech of Mitt Romney’s life. For Part I of my Smart-Ass Commentary featuring a look at Clint Eastwood’s speech and Mitt Romney’s introduction video, click this link. Otherwise, strap yourselves in because it’s time for me to share my thoughts from last night as I watched Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech as the Republican nominee for President of the United States from the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
•If Mitt Romney really has that mischievous sense of humor that his friends and family keep claiming he has, his entrance music should have been AMG’s “Bitch Betta Have My Money”.
•If that had happened, I would have voted for Romney, no matter what his positions or policies were.
•Might as well get it out of the way now: Lots of white folks in that crowd.
•I question the life experiences of a 65-year-old man who looks as youthful as Mitt Romney. I have more gray hair than he does.
•That is not a joke, sadly.
•No, really.
•Stop yelling, Mitt, you’ve got a microphone.
•How pissed would the GOP have been if Romney pivoted to the left and started running as a moderate IMMEDIATELY after the sentence where he accepted the nomination?
•Would people be that surprised?
•It seems like there are less banners and signs at this convention. Political conventions should have more silly signs and more state delegations wearing goofy hats.
•One minute in and I can say that Romney is better at speaking to the television audience while simultaneously using the teleprompter than Obama is. That’s one of my pet peeves about Obama — not that he uses a teleprompter, but that he stares at it too much instead of speaking to the audience.
•Okay, maybe I was wrong about the teleprompter thing. The line about Paul Ryan’s iPod playlist could not have been delivered more like a robot if R2D2 had said it.
•Mitt Romney’s eyebrows never match what he is saying or what emotion he is trying to convey. He’s like a broken Muppet.
•Why do American politicians still talk about Fidel Castro and his “tyranny”? He’s outlasted EVERYONE since Eisenhower. He won. Just kill the embargo and let’s reconnect with Cuba and the Cuban people. If we’re open to diplomacy with the Taliban, surely we can talk to the Cuba of 86-year-old Fidel Castro, who isn’t even in power anymore.
•The underlying message of every speech of this Convention has been, “Yeah, electing a black guy was a cool novelty, but now that we’ve gotten that out of the way…”
•If you disagree, go back and find where speakers at the GOP Convention talked about the “excitement” of Obama’s election and replace that word with “gimmick” or “experiment”. You’ll see what I mean.
•Romney looks like he’s expecting the real candidate to come out and take over at any second.
•”When you lost that job that paid $22.50/hour with benefits…” — Ummm…even when the economy was good, most of us didn’t have jobs like that, moneybags.
•Why are they chanting “USA! USA!”? It’s not like Romney is facing the Iron Sheik.
•Seriously, those eyebrows really need to get synced up with the rest of his software.
•I love those awkward moments in political speeches where the politician expects an applause break…but the crowd doesn’t applaud, so the politician kind of just pauses and smiles and then continues with the speech…but the crowd has realized by that time that it was supposed to applaud so it does…but the politician had already started speaking so he has to stop and allow the crowd’s guilty applause break to take place…and then everything is just off-balance for a few paragraphs after that. It has happened in every single speech since Antony eulogized Caesar.
•I can’t believe that he shared that after they watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon on her parents’ sofa that he and Ann “knocked boots until the Apollo mission came home”. That seemed wildly inappropriate for this setting.
•Oh, look, many of the people in the Texas delegation are dressed like jackasses! A time-honored tradition of douchebaggery from the Lone Star state.
•STOP CHANTING “USA!” — THE OTHER SIDE ARE AMERICANS, TOO.
•Romney paid tribute to Neil Armstrong’s “unique blend of optimism, humility and confidence”, as well as Armstrong’s complete aversion to the American public and intense, 40-year-long dislike for sharing his amazing story with others.
•When you need someone to leave a bunch of trash on the moon, “you need an American.”
•If Mitt Romney is going to keep trying to pass off the fact that his dad was born in Mexico as if he is some sort of secret Mexican, I wish the Obama campaign’s truth team would share that the reason Mitt’s dad was born in Mexico was because most Americans (“USA!”) frowned on the fact that Mitt’s grandfather was a polygamist who wanted to have a bunch of wives.
•”Yay, Detroit! Our city isn’t quite as bad as Mogadishu…oh wait…nevermind. Our city isn’t quite as bad as Aleppo!”
•Boy, did Romney ever skip over the Mormon thing quickly or what?
•”My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all…” — a shitload of money.
•”You know, if every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family — and God’s love — this world would be a far more gentle and better place” — That ranks right up there amongst the corniest things ever said. Congratulations, Mitt, you just made a sentence that was the equivalent of a pink kitten t-shirt!
•And, immediately, the cameras cut to the crowd where someone is shaking their ugly baby because they stupidly brought it to a political convention.
•How annoying would it have had to be to be the florist who delivered one rose to the Romney home every day for 64 years?
•Romney’s mom realized that Romney’s dad was dead because there was no rose waiting for her in the morning? How about checking on your husband before checking for the rose? Jesus, talk about priorities.
•Romney can hear his mom saying “Why should women have any less say than men about the great decisions facing our nation?”. On that note, I ask, “Why should men have ANY say about the way a woman takes care of her body?”.
•Okay, here are a bunch of crowd shots. I’m going to play a game called Let’s Find A Black Person. Oh…sorry, Anthony, you lose…better luck in Charlotte.
•Romney just ran off the name of a bunch of Republican women and Sarah Palin got no love. My, how the mediocre have fallen.
•Wait, did Mitt Romney just say that he wants to wake up in the morning and discover a pile of kids asleep in his room?
•Why are all of the old women in the audience tearing up as he speaks and blubbering like a bunch of old wome…oh.
•Again, Mitt Romney clearly admits that his wife is more qualified than he is to be President since her job was harder and more important.
•Okay, finally, the meat of the speech.
•”You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as President when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.” — OUCH. Killer line. No joke. That was good.
•Shit, he’s kinda, sorta on fire right now. I don’t agree with what he’s saying, but he’s saying it well.
•He’s coming across as likeable while talking about his business experience. What the hell happened in the past five minutes?
•Oh, good. Nothing turns me back to being cynical more quickly than showing a reaction shot of “the people”.
•Hey, you can’t claim Steve Jobs.
•A comparison with Jimmy Carter? Now, that’s just low, dude.
•”Americans have supported this President in good faith.” — Oh yeah, that totally happened.
•”Many Americans have given up on this President but they haven’t ever thought about giving up.” — Romney’s such a flip-flopper that he just literally changed positions in the same sentence.
•Hey, it’s a guy dressed up as a American Revolution-era gay clown!
•Hahaha…the crowd was doing the gimmick where they boo after the punchlines, but then Romney said something that they were supposed to cheer and 15,000 confused people went, “Uh…(clap?)”.
•Mitt Romney has a 5-step plan to create 12 million new jobs. I have a 1-step plan: Execute 12 million working Americans.
•Why is the whitest guy in the crowd holding a “Hispanics 4 Romney” sign. Was that Mitt’s grandfather?
•I love how they showed Newt Gingrich immediately after Romney said he would “honor the institution of marriage.” There is no way that was unintentional.
•What the fuck ever happened to Herman Cain?
•The crowd at the RNC laughed when Romney said that Obama promised to “slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet”, and it was a perfect illustration of what frightens me about that party — the fact that they respond to the idea of science with the same incredulity that I have when I respond to the idea of a big bearded man in some paradise up in the clouds who will send me to a fiery place full of monsters if I’m not good.
•For fuck’s sake, enough about “Castro’s Cuba”. I get that Romney wants to be Reagan-ish, but the shit about Cuban sanctions, missile defense commitments in Poland, and toughness against Russia sounds like he forgot that it’s not 1982.
•What’s next? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”?
•Maybe he should talk about how that Qaddafi guy is a mad dog.
•If you want to criticize Obama on foreign policy, hit him on Syria, not on Cuba.
•This speech is officially five minutes too long, and it’s not wrapping up.
•You know, despite the fact that he is shifty politically, Mitt Romney comes across most of the time as a genuinely nice man…BUT every once in a while those dysfunctional eyebrows reveal a confused vacancy in his eyes and he looks like an older version of a rape-y frat guy from Veronica Mars.
•Call and response. That’s not a tired gimmick during political speeches.
•Sweet, I think he is wrapping up after all.
•Balloons…gotta have balloons at the Convention, and a bunch of lily-white children on stage. If you turned down the sound on the TV and played Wagner instead, it would look like a Leni Riefenstahl film.
•I know that I’ve watched far too many episodes of WWE Monday Night Raw when I keep hoping that Romney will pull a CM Punk, smash Paul Ryan in the head with the microphone, and then unbutton his dress shirt to display an Obama logo as he screams “Yay to gay people! Yay to abortions!” at the crowd while Jim Ross talks about how “Good Gawd! Mitt Romney has turned his back on the people!”.
Overall, the speech had a strong finish, and was pretty solid once he got past his boring-ass family. He seemed the most human and passionate (and strangely likeable) when he spoke about his business experience, oddly enough. The speech wasn’t as good as Reagan or Clinton, but it certainly wasn’t as bad as John Kerry or John McCain, either.
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I don’t get a W. vibe from Romney at all. For one thing, despite all of George W. Bush’s many faults (and there were many), he was a far better politician than Mitt Romney is. Bush had natural political skills and was much better on the campaign trail than many critics give him credit for. It’s not possible to win two, razor-tight elections without some political skill and President Bush had an underrated ability to connect with people while campaigning. Romney has hit his stride since naming Congressman Ryan as his running mate and he has been looking better on the campaign trail over the past two weeks, but he’s never going to be the folksy, press-fleshing candidate. And, unlike Bush, he doesn’t have solid, concrete political foundations or beliefs that he wouldn’t dare deviate from.
Now, with that said, I do think Mitt Romney would be a better President than George W. Bush. That’s not an endorsement or what I’m hoping to see, but I think Romney is more flexible and flexibility is actually an asset for a President. Romney is certainly more idea-oriented and hands-on, and he’s a proven administrator who is comfortable with leading and managing.
But, other than the party affiliation, I think Bush and Romney are two very different politicians.
Here is what I wrote about Paul Ryan on April 4th:
Politically, I don’t agree with much of anything that Paul Ryan believes in, but I respect the hell out of Paul Ryan and I’ll explain why.
The current incarnation of American politics is all about talking about and tearing down the ideas of others. Almost every major American politician is best-known for being against something. I don’t believe the same things that Paul Ryan believes, but at least Paul Ryan steps up and puts forth a plan. Paul Ryan doesn’t simply hang back and snipe at his Democratic opponents or take shots at everything he is against in President Obama’s budget. Ryan puts forward his own budget and, good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, he puts his name on it and tries to sell it and he goes down with the ship when it’s sunk by the Senate.
I wouldn’t vote for the man because I don’t share his ideology and I wouldn’t vote for his budget because I don’t agree with much of it, but at least Paul Ryan is a doer instead of just a talker. Sadly, it takes a certain amount of political courage to stand up today and put your own plan forward, so no matter what side of the aisle he stands on, at least Paul Ryan stands for something.
It’s easy to be against someone or someone else’s ideas; we should have more respect for the rare politician who is actually an advocate for his own ideas or policies. I respect Paul Ryan. He’s a too Conservative for my tastes, politically, but I wish we had more politicians on both sides who worked the same way he does, and I think he’d be a perfect running mate for Mitt Romney.
I still pretty much feel the same way. When I read Robert Draper’s recent book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do (BOOK•KINDLE) about the House of Representatives during this historically awful 112th Congress (9% approval rating!), I was disgusted by most (not all, but most) members of the House of Representatives. On both sides of the aisle. They turned a deliberative body into a an obstructionist, reactionary, horrible institution where nothing gets down for the American people because the House members no longer understand the definition of or actual work of politics. Nobody ever has ideas because they are too busy tearing down someone else or running for re-election. No one ever takes a stand, like I said above. Paul Ryan at least brings something to the table, no matter how much I might disagree with him. I’d rather have 50 Paul Ryans in Congress than one Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Texas who wastes the time of everybody who sets foot in the House Chamber every morning, or Raul Labrador, a freshman Republican Congressman from Idaho who had the nerve to tell Speaker John Boehner — the leader of his own party — that “I didn’t come to Washington to be a part of a team.” (Hey, Congressman Labrador, I hope this pops up on the Google Alert for your name: “Fuck off”). At least Ryan leads and actually works — at least he is someone who steps forward and offers a solution (even if it is the wrong one).
Every single time that I mention Ron Paul’s name I get upwards of 800,000 pieces of hate mail (that’s a rough estimate, perhaps not perfectly accurate), so I hope that Ron Paul supporters will read my words closely and note that I am not disparaging him in this answer.
I think Ron Paul would be a far more effective third party candidate than Gary Johnson, or even Ralph Nader. I’m not sure that Dr. Paul — at least in 2012 — would get too close to Ross Perot’s 1992 showing, but I could see him getting close to that 8.4% that Perot won in 1996 against the incumbent President Clinton and Republican nominee Bob Dole. He would have been even more effective in 2008 — still less than Perot in ‘92 (19%), but probably between 10-12%.
Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in all but four states in 1988 and won about half of a percentage point of the popular vote. I don’t know the specific reasoning behind why he didn’t run as a third party candidate in 2008, but it could be because of his seat in Congress. Remaining as a Republican might have been necessary in order to protect any attractive committee assignments that he had seniority on due to his longevity as a member of the House of Representatives. This year, that wouldn’t have been a concern because he decided against seeking another term in Congress in order to focus on his 2012 Presidential bid, but perhaps he remained in the GOP race rather than bolting for a third party because he was trying to shape the Republican Party’s platform and policy more than seriously believing that he had a chance at the actual GOP nomination. I don’t think that Dr. Paul has ever denied that a big part of his 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns was to shape the agenda and steer the conversation.
2016 should be a very interesting year if President Obama wins re-election in November. Ron Paul will be 81, so I find it highly unlikely that he would make another run for the nomination. I could see his son, Rand, taking a shot at the White House, but as a third party candidate. I could see Jon Huntsman running as a third party candidate. I could see New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg exploring a third party candidacy. I think we’ll see a viable third party Presidential candidate with the potential to make 2016 very interesting — and that’s without even exploring the possible Democratic or Republican candidates.
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad [George H.W. Bush] — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.” — former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in BuzzFeed, echoing something that I have previously written about, namely the opinion that Reagan and Bush 41 would have a difficult battle in gaining a foothold in today’s Republican Party or winning the GOP nomination because of the partisan extremists who control the narrative.
(Rebloggable format by request)
No, I can’t.
That’s the thing: I literally cannot explain why someone who believes the things that Rick Santorum believes and says the things that Rick Santorum says can be a leading contender for a major party’s Presidential nomination this late in a campaign in the 21st Century. I can’t explain it because I genuinely can’t understand it.
I know that I keep saying the same thing, but I truly am embarrassed for my country. It hurts my heart to recognize that there is a large part of the population that agrees with Santorum and finds him appealing. He is a disgraceful, hate-filled, ignorant man. A religious extremist like Santorum should not be able to get as deep into the Presidential election process in a country like the United States. And I don’t use “religious extremist” lightly. The man as much of an extremist for Christianity as the proponents of Sharia law are extremists for Islam.
Everything begins and ends with religion for Rick Santorum, and his faith is a narrow-minded faith of exclusion that is completely absent of reason. As I have previously noted, Santorum is a man who said, “Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science class.”
An even more frightening quote from Santorum is his argument last February that our “national religion” or “national faith” is rooted in Christianity:
“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American left who hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization at the core. That’s the problem.
What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values. ‘All men are created equal’ — that’s a Christian value, but it’s an American value. It’s become part of our national religion, if you will. The point I was trying to make was that the national faith, the national ideal, is rooted in the Christian ideal — in the Judeo-Christian concept of the person.”
These are the words of a serious contender for the Presidency, and these are words that scare the shit out of me. I’m all for freedom of religion and I respect everyone’s faith or spiritual belief or choice to not believe. But when I start hearing things like “national religion”, my palms start sweating, the hair stands up on the back of my neck, and I wonder when the extremists are going to start acting like the Taliban and destroying cultural icons that don’t jive with their particular faith, or commanding that we start living our lives in the manner that their Bible says we should.
As Presidential campaigns continue and grow, the normal, sane candidate usually takes time to clarify remarks which may seem controversial or extreme, and that’s where we really are seeing proof of who Rick Santorum actually is. It was just Sunday morning when Santorum told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to ministers in Houston makes him want to throw up. That speech was inspirational. It crossed religious, racial, and political party lines. It was a testament to the grand experiment in liberty which this nation was created from as JFK noted that his religion had nothing to do with his ability to protect and preserve the Constitution. Yet, that sentiment from Kennedy makes Santorum want to vomit.
That’s one of our leading contenders for the Presidency, my friends. That’s a man who made sure to add “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” I guess we’re from different Americas. Rick Santorum’s extreme religious ideology isn’t what the Founders intended for the President of a democratic republic; it’s more in line with being the Supreme Ayatollah of a theocracy. I am adamantly opposed to Rick Santorum not just because of his extremism or his ignorance or his boorish beliefs or his complete lack of understanding of people who are different than those who he sees at Church. My opposition is focused on the fact that people like him are dangerous and I am frightened for my country.
THANK YOU, Mr. Friedersdorf! This is almost certainly my favorite sentence that has been written so far about the 2012 Presidential campaign, and the entire article in The Atlantic plainly illustrates the ridiculousness behind the obsession that Rick Santorum — or any Presidential hopeful or American politician — seems to harbor about our sex lives.
With that said, I must admit that the past few weeks of the campaign have seemed to leave me wishing something about Rick Santorum’s sex life: I have a powerful hope that he will do us all a favor and just go fuck himself.
Look at me — raising the bar for political discourse, as always!
Anonymous Asks:
deadpresidents Said:
I’ll say this: Ron Paul is doing better than I expected so far, but I think his two strongest states coming into 2012 were Iowa and New Hampshire and those contests are already finished (and despite his strong performances, he didn’t win either of them, by the way).
Ron Paul can’t win because, on a national level, his views are too extreme and radical for the majority of American voters. All of the support that Ron Paul has is all of the support that Ron Paul will get. The Republican Party will not nominate Ron Paul because Ron Paul can’t win a national election. The GOP knows this, and there is no way that they would want Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee.
By the way, if you take the politics out of the equation — if Ron Paul had the same political positions as Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman or Newt Gingrich — he still would be a bad choice for the Republicans. Why? He’s too old. There were concerns about John McCain in 2008 and Bob Dole in 1996. Ron Paul will be 77 years old on Election Day. He would be the oldest major party Presidential nominee in American History. He’s older than Reagan was in 1984 when he sought a second term. He’s older than Eisenhower was when he left office. He’s older than John McCain — not older than McCain was in 2008, but older than McCain is NOW. McCain was born in August 1936; Paul was born a full year earlier, in August 1935.
I’m not going to get in the argument again with the Paul supporters, but just stop already — not only is he never going to be President of the United States, but he’s never going to be nominated for President. If you want to be realistic, get behind his son. Rand has a better chance than Ron (but that’s not going to happen, either).
