Home / Culture and Society / Satire: Virile Republican Leaders Spearhead Party Renaissance

Satire: Virile Republican Leaders Spearhead Party Renaissance

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was already being talked about as a potential Republican Party standard-bearer in the 2012 election. Youthful, good-looking, a Southerner, and a Washington outsider, he seemed to have much of what the party needed to energize a comeback from the disappointments of the last two election cycles.

Now happy Party strategists are basking in an unexpected bonus. This week Sanford polished his virile image with an announcement that instead of hiking the Appalachian Trail as he'd told his staff, he'd actually been visiting his mistress, Maria, in exotic Argentina.

Right-wing blogs lit up with excited discussion of the Republicans' continuing good fortune. Only a week before, Nevada Senator John Ensign, another potential candidate, announced with a fanfare that he was quitting his go-nowhere, fourth-ranking Senate post in order to pursue a dalliance with a staff member, while retaining his Senate seat, where he will be ideally poised for a political leap.

Nevada has another rising star in Governor Jim Gibbons, who recently burnished his own already potent image with news of unbridled sexuality. Meanwhile, back in the Senate, David Vitter of Louisiana — not to be outdone — has been quietly talking up his own robust record of "very serious" whoring.

In a related development, a "Draft Craig" movement has gotten underway on the streets of Boise, attempting to lure former Idaho Senator Larry Craig back into politics. Craig did not run for re-election after being caught engaging in homosexual activity in an airport bathroom in 2007, but in the new political climate, according to RNC spokesman Rod Foray, "the gay thing is a plus now" — the sheer force of the former Senator's "omnivorous" appetites outweigh any lingering Republican discomfort with homosexuality.

Gearing up to meet the challenge, Democratic leaders announced the formation of a blue-ribbon panel headed by Bill Clinton, which will attempt to counter the onslaught of positive press for the Republicans. ("You can't buy that kind of publicity," said an unnamed staffer.) The Clinton Commission, which also includes former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, and former Senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart, has announced plans for a European fact-finding mission.

The American statesmen will meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Premiere Silvio Berlusconi, and representatives of the British League of Autoerotic Asphyxiants.

Powered by

About Jon Sobel

Jon Sobel is a Publisher and Executive Editor of Blogcritics as well as lead editor of the Culture & Society section. As a writer he contributes most often to Culture, where he reviews NYC theater; he also covers interesting music releases. Through Oren Hope Marketing and Copywriting at http://www.orenhope.com/ you can hire him to write or edit whatever marketing or journalistic materials your heart desires. Jon also writes the blog Park Odyssey at http://parkodyssey.blogspot.com/ where he visits every park in New York City. And by night he's a part-time working musician: lead singer, songwriter, and bass player for Whisperado, a member of other bands as well, and a sideman.
  • Posting in the Politics section, Jon. Good for you. Get ready for the static, though.

  • Nice touch.

  • I’m not sure this is satire. I’d like to see Republicans take more of this sort of attitude. Sanctimoniousness is going to leave the party without any leaders worth electing in 2012.

    I mean look at the democrats. They can overlook affairs, gay prostitution rings and kiddie porn convictions if that’s what it takes to keep their leaders active.


  • Baronius

    Senator Ensign was a party leader?

  • Well, he has been talked about as a potential 2012 White House candidate. Oh well. Perhaps he needs a promotion to Lieutenant first.

  • Baronius

    I never heard anyone talk about him, and I’m no stranger to political chat. I looked around online, and saw he was on a couple of liberal’s Top Ten possibilities lists. No conservative or GOP writer mentioned him.

    Remember how a couple of months ago, conservative radio was freaking out every time another “major” Obama appointment had a tax problem? They were assistant deputies to the farm bureau, but it sold more copy to portray them as key players. Same thing with Ensign.

  • Baronius

    Petraeus, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Gingrich, Sanford, Jindal, Palin, Crist, Paul, Cantor, and Romney are the most common names out there. Any senator or congressman could find himself on the list if he stakes out a good David and Goliath position, so I guess that Ensign could have made the list that way.

  • Ensign was Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for 2008, which is a leadership position albeit not a glamorous one.

  • Baronius

    So he was the brains behind the 2008 electoral juggernaut? Oh, yeah, he had a big future.

  • Right. Everyone digs holes in the boat, but it’s the captain’s fault it sunk. I don’t think anyone could have saved the Republicans driving off the cliff in ’08.

  • Baronius

    Politics isn’t fair. The stink of failure follows you. A junior senator from a state with 5 electoral votes who lost at least 8 Senate seats wasn’t about to win the GOP presidential nomination.

  • Stewart on Sanford: “Just another conservative mind with a liberal penis.”

  • Actually, Larry Craig has the liberal penis. Conservatives of Sanford’s ilk do it because they’re afraid not only of their mortality but that inability to relate to women on any level.

    Mark Sanford is the husband of the heir to the Skil Tools fortune. He’s bought and paid for by his wife, period. Mark Sanford is a kept boy who got caught getting a cookie out of the cookie jar. That’s not a liberal penis, that’s called a douche bag.

    And, for the record, he should NOT resign as a result of this disclosure. That being said, he should be impeached for dereliction of duty as an elected Governor. If he chooses to resign under that pretense, I would deem it appropriate.

  • Baronius: A junior senator from a state with 5 electoral votes who lost at least 8 Senate seats wasn’t about to win the GOP presidential nomination.

    There was no way Sanford would emerge as the nominee in 2012. There’s a GOP leader out there who can turn this party around — problem is they haven’t figured out which sacrificial lamb they’re going to offer up against Barack Obama.

  • I don’t really care who any of them sleep with. But they can all resign. That’ll make me happy.

  • Indeed, Cindy. As far a I am concerned, every incumbent in Congress needs to go home, period. It’s time for a changing of the guard in Washington. Let the Iranians have their own changing of the guard. It’s time for us to accomplish the same in our own back yard.

    And as far as white trash like Ensign and Sanford, who cares? I’m glad to see that they may display evidence of having prolific genitalia. I mean, I knew they had balls bigger than Jupiter, but these latest disclosures paint a very interesting portrait.

  • OMG republicans are finally making the move for the sexy title

  • There are exceptions to every rule, even adultery.

    Sex shenanigans are not necessarily disqualification from office

  • Jon, This is a great article and I don’t care who thinks it’s not satire because…It’s the truth!

    For the last thirty years we have been told that only the Republicans/Conservatives Really posses family values…HA!

    Let’s look again at the loving and true relationship between President Obama and First lady Michelle OBama; now here is a man and woman that know what family values really are! and they still do it!!!! in the White House, not in some hidden hotel or public bathroom!

    Hmmm, humble pie doesn’t taste so good, does it?

  • They do what, Jeannie?

  • You know, Jeannie, I have to admit that I take some guilty pleasure in knowing it frosts the cupcakes of many a Religicant (religious Republicans who are so oppressed that their genitalia have atrophied) that the Obamas “do it”. And you know what? Who cares?

    Roger: Sex shenanigans are not necessarily disqualification from office

    I agree. I just finished watching Gov Sanford’s contrite statement while meeting with his cabinet and it all rings hollow. Sack cloth and ashes are theatrical but disingenuous. As stated previously, Mark Sanford was a kept man, bought and paid for by his wife. How he violated his fiduciary marriage arrangement is not the issue here. How the Governor shirked his responsibility to South Carolinians is something that demands accountability.

    Mongo: OMG republicans are finally making the move for the sexy title

    Ah, come on! There are plenty of ‘sexy’ Republicans. Sanford is kind of cute. Ensign is definitely handsome. Todd Palin is hot. I mean, let’s face it. Todd Palin or Barney Frank?

  • Silas, Sanford was the best hope for the GOP to take a rational position on issues like gay marriage and ending the drug war. I would have thought such things appealed to you.

    Jeannie, family values are irrelevant to anything meaningful in politics. They are just a sop to the ignorant and irrational. Both parties are entirely hypocritical when they try to run on them, yet both do.


  • Baronius

    Does anyone really think that the Obamas’ sex life bothers Republicans? I can understand attacking straw men to bolster your argument, but that one is just preposterous. I mean, think about it. A husband and wife having sex. Where’s the discomfort supposed to come from?

  • zingzing


  • Well, Baronius — Dwight & Mamie. In the White House. I’m uncomfortable.

    Dave, with regard to Sanford it doesn’t matter. There are many moderate Republicans out there who appeal to me with their rational approach. Right now issues like gay marriage are on the back burner for me. The Far Right loves to use this wedge issue to take attention off of those issues which matter most. In my view it’s time for practical politics and select those battles which matter most. In order for one to rise to the throne of the GOP, they have to morph.

    Case in point is Mitt Romney. When he was running for Governor he was slightly right of center. But once he became Governor, he was focused on one thing: the White House. He served one term as Governor of Massachusetts and I assure you his Lieutenant Governor was in charge of the state more often than not because Mitt ways busy being papabile.

    All of a sudden the “rational” Mitt Romney which appealed to Massachusetts voters disappeared. Mitt Romney was the new Brigham Young. He’s played his cards brilliantly. He’s got his fingers in every sector of the economy by virtue of his business holdings and dealings; and quietly traverses the continent in his quest for the White House.

    He’ll gradually bring them on like herds of sheep to the slaughter. By 2012, there will be a “reinvigorated” GOP, all united under the Romney banner. Let’s face it, he’s the most attractive. He’s the most articulate. He’s the only potential Republican candidate who could actually look intelligent in a debate with Barack Obama.

    In order for Mitt Romney to secure the GOP nomination he must secure the Far Right and his Mormon machinery. Money buys votes, Dave. The pundits are convinced of an Obama victory in 2012. I, on the other hand, am convinced that Mitt Romney will be inaugurated on January 20, 2013. Next year’s elections will be the key political barometric indicator and only a dramatic revolution in our political system will prevent Romney from being #45.

  • Baronius

    OK, I walked into that one. Serves me right for trying to be serious on a Satire thread on a Friday.

  • Baronius

    Ike freed Europe, and Mamie waited patiently for him. Let ’em doink. They earned it.

  • Dang, Baronius. I think Dwight & Mamie made even YOU uncomfortable!

  • Baronius

    Not as long as I don’t have to watch. Hey, that gives me an idea for a parody: the release of the Nixon sex tapes!

  • Which Nixon? Tricia Nixon & Ed Cox (snicker)? Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower (in the Dwight & Mamie Memorial bed – double snicker)? Or Pat and Dick? Next thing you know you’ll bring up Jimmy and Rasalynn.

  • Clavos

    Oral sex, Roger.

  • Clavos

    Jimmy did it with rabbits — but only crazed ones.

  • If you’re referring to #18, it was a subterfuge. There was a posting by JOM.

  • Well you all missed the point of my #19, but what the hell it’s Friday so talk about four little words…

    They still do it!!! :* /_____[

  • I think Silas or was it Jordan rather that dealt with it, Jeannie.

  • See, Clavos, I’ve told you.

  • Where’s everybody? The lunch is over!

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, if you want to discuss your comment, fine. Why the humble pie? I didn’t cheat on my wife; I’ve got nothing to feel bad about.

    And it isn’t like Republicans are lining up to make adultery illegal. They’re talking about things like abortion. How do Sanford’s actions make abortion any more moral? Also, there are plenty of Democrats who oppose abortion, and a majority of them favor some restrictions on abortion. So there are plenty of “family values”, if that’s what you mean, on both sides of the aisle.

    Incidentally, I’ve never heard a conservative use the term “family values”, and I’ve only ever heard it used ironically by liberals. So I’m only guessing that’s what you mean by it.

    I’ve got one more question: why doesn’t the article mention John Edwards? Probably the same reason I think of him as short. The guy could be an Olympian in bed, but no one would ever think to call him “virile”.

  • Baronius, I don’t view abortion as immoral, I view it as a very personal decision. I understand all sides of the issue, especially with regard to when life actually begins. If it is true that life begins at conception, then I ask about all of those fertilized eggs a woman expels from her body. It seems to me that there are billions of those every year. So, the issue of when “life” actually does begin is far more complicated than our little minds can perceive.

    I also agree with your assessment on hearing a conservative use “family values”. The Far Right uses the term religiously. They are not conservatives, they are American Taliban. A real conservative leaves family values as a personal decision, believes in conserving the environment and certainly supports a women’s right to choose. On second thought perhaps there IS a conservative party in this country — Libertarian.

    I don’t know why the article leaves out John Edwards and I agree with your assessment. I do see him as virile though I think my virile vision of him is diametrically opposite to what’s acceptable.

  • Baronius

    Silas, I’ve gone out of my way to try to find examples of other conservatives, far right, religious right, whoever – you know who we’re talking about – using the term “family values”. I’ve never run across it. We tend to be much less vague.

  • Wasn’t that, though, a rather common phrase used by people like William Bennett and George Lakoff during “culture wars”?

  • Dan Quayle, too, comes to mind in the “Murphy Brown” affair.

  • Baronius

    Never happened, as far as I can tell.

  • Baronus, Go back and look at the platforms Reagan and both Bush’s ran on! The words “family values” being the corner stone.

    Incidentally, I’ve never heard a conservative use the term “family values”, and I’ve only ever heard it used ironically by liberals. So I’m only guessing that’s what you mean by it.

    What liberals? I didn’t know there were any Liberals in politics. The only liberals I ever wanted to work in politics refused. Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky (I think I spelled their names right.)

    I would like to apologize for the humble pie remark. I do have a tendency to fly off the handle a bit…:( Sorry Baronus.

    I am working for the season so I am not here all the time like before. My comments have become like little hit and runs..:)

  • Just a little reminder for those who’re too busy look:

    “The use of family values as a political term became widespread after a 1992 speech by Vice President Dan Quayle that attributed the Los Angeles riots to a breakdown of family values. Quayle specifically blamed the violence in L.A. as stemming from a decay of moral values and family structure in American society. In an aside, he cited the fictional title character in the television program Murphy Brown as an example of how popular culture contributes to this “poverty of values”, saying: “[i]t doesn’t help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice'”. Quayle drew a firestorm of criticism from feminist and liberal organizations, and was widely ridiculed by late-night talk show hosts for saying this. (In an interview years after the incident, Quayle said it was an off-hand remark and that he had no idea it would ignite such controversy, nor had he intended for it to. Ironically, the show’s star Candice Bergen herself said in an interview after the show was cancelled that she agreed with him.) The “Murphy Brown speech” and the resulting media coverage damaged the Republican ticket in the 1992 presidential election and became one of the most memorable incidents of the 1992 campaign. Long after the outcry had ended, the comment continued to have an effect on US politics. Stephanie Coontz, a professor of family history and the author of several books and essays about the history of marriage, says that this brief remark by Quayle about Murphy Brown “kicked off more than a decade of outcries against the ‘collapse of the family'”.[9]
    Others have used the phrase in such slogans as: Hate is not a family value. Jim Wallis, at the Sojourners Call for Renewal in 2006, titled his speech “Poverty is not a family value.”[citation needed] Many Americans believe that access to health care and to education, and freedom from violence, are important family values.”

    Source: wikipedia

  • [Some have suggested that in today’s world, the family has somehow become less important. Well, I can’t help thinking just the opposite: that when so much around us is whispering the little lie that we should live only for the moment and for ourselves, it’s more important than ever for our families to affirm an older and more lasting set of values. Yet, for all that, in recent decades the American family has come under virtual attack. It has lost authority to government rule writers. It has seen its central role in the education of young people narrowed and distorted. And it’s been forced to turn over to big government far too many of its own resources in the form of taxation.] Ronald Reagan

  • Baronius

    Roger, the problem is that Quayle never used the phrase in the Murphy Brown speech.

    Jeannie, the phrase appears once in the 1980 GOP platform, twice in 1984, and three times (all references to judges) in 1988.

  • I don’t use wikipedia as a source because it can be edited by anyone.

  • Read # 46 Baronius and click on link it’s Reagan’s radio address

  • Radio Address to the Nation on Family Values
    December 20, 1986

  • Well, these things are verifiable. At least there’s material here that if one wants to, one can dig deeper.

  • Baronius

    I read it. It’s a Christmas address, which tend to be vague. Reagan was usually more specific.

  • Look what the top of the page says. This is not vague.

  • I don’t have a dog in this fight. But if you look this article up, you will see the phrase used by “the liberals” – Planned Parenthood, e.g. – but obviously with a different meaning/intent in mind.

  • Wait, there’s more!

  • Yep. I quoted only a passage. Click on the link.

  • [Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River,] George W. Bush
    How Bush has replaced natural rights with family values..

  • Baronuis, Wait, I’ll go find more!If you don’t mind…:)

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, I’m saying that Reagan was usually very specific, and tended not to use weenie words like “family values”. But in a Christmas speech, a politician will use syrupy phrases.

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, you’ll notice that in your GWB quote, he’s using the phrase mockingly.

  • Hi Jeannie,

    Love Gore Vidal. I am not so sure Noam Chomsky could be called a liberal. Anarchist, libertarian socialist, leftist, radical left, far left? What do you think?

    (He considers himself a Libertarian socialist same thing as an anarchist.)

  • What comes to mind when you think about what George W. Bush stands for? Family values/issues

  • Hi Cindy,
    Noam Chomsky…
    (He considers himself a Libertarian socialist same thing as an anarchist.)

    well I’ll be! I guess I am an Anarchist…:)


  • Jeannie,

    That comment about replacing natural rights with family values (#57), that’s a good one.

  • Baronius, I don’t want to bombarded you with links & quotes. Can you see my point of view at all? 🙂

  • Did anyone see my little stick body in #34?

  • :#

  • The following is a good discussion/video by George Lakoff, a linguist and the intellectual spokesperson for Republican thinking in the nineties (again, the general context is “culture wars” alluded to earlier). I don’t understand why the memories are suddenly failing:

    George Lakoff.

  • Bliffle

    Good satire, Jon. Brief, pointed and not heavy-handed. Pretty even-handed too, by getting in some appropriate digs at the dems.

    Our pols are REALLY virile! They’re bonking everything in sight.

  • Jeannie,

    When you get back on this thread, do check out the link I provided in #69. It lays it all out in fairly comprehensive term.

    Baronius should look at it too.

  • Baronius

    Jeannie – I understand what you’re saying, that the phrase “family values” is associated with the conservative movement. But the phrase had a really short life span, being used unironically for only about three years.

  • Clavos

    Our pols are REALLY virile! They’re bonking everything in sight.

    That’s probably the one area where they’re not much different from the general populace. They just get caught more because they are pols and in the public eye.

  • Nice take on Sanford’s late change of heart and split personality: Genius in the Bottle.

  • Baronius, In answer to your #72, Bob Schieffer this morning on “Face The Nation” referred to the Republican party as the party of Family Values…it continues! and so does our little tug of war:)

  • Besides, the fact that the Reps may have discontinued the phrase, “family values,” because they may have found it worn-out and no longer of political usefulness, doesn’t mean that their thinking has changed: it’s still a party of “family values,” whether they call it so or not.

  • If Sanford doesn’t resign as Governor of SC, then I want Spitzer back as Governor of NY and john Edwards so he can help eliminate poverty in the United States!!!!

    Sorry, I’m not on Twitter anymore and I really needed to say this somewhere!

  • There will not be an apology this morning to the right wing.

    I’m too bummed out by the stupidity I see on Sunday morning political TV!


  • One reason why Spitzer was routed out had to do with his iron hand against the Wall Street crooks. (They called him the Major of Wall Street.) So the sex scandal was an excuse.

  • “that’s “mayor of Wall Street”

  • Here’s one link

  • A better one

  • Clavos

    There will not be an apology this morning to the right wing.

    I’m too bummed out by the stupidity I see on Sunday morning political TV!

    OMG, I’m desolated.

    I may have to slash my wrists.

    Or perhaps immolate myself.

  • zingzing

    clavos, clavos, clavos.

    what say you we drink enough gasoline to get good and combustible, slash our wrists, run around the room a few times, then set the initial blood-gas trails on fire, which hopefully should burn fast enough that they chase us around the room, until, when they finally catch up to our bodies, we explode in a glorious exhibition of our inner-most organs?

  • It’d dead today, zing. No one wants to participate.

  • zingzing

    well, it’s game day. us-brazil 2:30. fuck politics.

  • I’d like to see it on TV, but haven’t had one in years. Too bad can’t watch it on the net.

  • 84 – ick

    86 – double ick

  • zingzing

    you’re kidding, roger… so many pirates out there. it’s easy to find if you look.

    cindy. if you don’t like sports, that’s ok. there’s nothing wrong with being uncultured. (smiley emoticon)

  • zingalingadingaling you don’t do emoticons either?

    ah these cool men and their fear of emoticons :-)(-:

    (sports: wretch, gag)

  • Clavos

    The wretch, having drunk gasoline at zing’s urging, retched.

  • zingzing

    i see that, clavos.

  • Baronius

    Jeannie, let’s try this again.

    Republicans/conservatives used the phrase “family values” occasionally between 1986 and 1988. But for the most part, they talked about specific issues: crime, abortion, the black family, education, and divorce. Thereafter, whenever the phrase was used, it came from people like you and Bob Schieffer treating it as a cliche. It would be like me saying that Democrats always use the term “great society”.

  • Baronius, I see you are not going to be happy until Jeannie says that she’s wrong and that you are right.

    Am I right?

    But if I say I’m wrong then you won’t talk to me anymore..:(

    so, Ill never admit defeat!

    The right wing today on Face The Nation
    Take a minute and watch, “shifting away from scandals.” This is what the right always wants to do when it is theirscandal!

    Let me tell you this Baronius,

    Most people are concerned about putting food on their tables right now and they do want to see some domestic spending right now!

    I like that saying of yours and I do want us to be a “great society.”…:)

  • zingzing

    baronius, just look up “family values” in the news. sure, some of the hits come from left-wingers mocking right-wing bullshit, but some of them also come from the right wing. so… seems to be a valid term, no matter how much you want to deny it.

    seriously, i wasn’t even politically aware until the late-90s sometime and i remember being sick to fucking death of republicans wheeling out the term like it was some sort of badge or hat they could wear. maybe it meant something more substantial back in the era you mention, but it still means something today (even if those spouting it are being shown to be full of shit).

  • Baronius

    ‘Baronius, I see you are not going to be appy until Jeannie says that she’s wrong and that you are right.’

    I’d certainly prefer it, but only because you’re wrong and I’m right. This is similar to your earlier statement that only Fox News was allowed in the Bush White House. I have this dream that if everyone stood up against inaccurate statements on the web, we could gradually make it reliable.

    ‘Take a minute and watch, “shifting away from scandals.” This is what the right always wants to do when it is their scandal!’

    That’s why the right set up a site called MoveOn.Org after the impeachment of their president…oh, wait, wrong party.

  • zing,

    Why don’t you check out the link to a video (I posted in #69), which should be more than explanatory and ought to put this matter to rest. It goes beyond the matter of mere words but cuts instead into the underlying ideology.

    So even if it’s true, as Baronius claims, that the use of the words, “family values” has been discontinued (and we can think here of any variety of reasons), the very thinking which prompted coining the expression is still very much alive and in full force.

  • Baronius

    Gads, Roger! Are you saying that people still think that illiteracy, crime, and abortion are bad?

  • I’m sure they do, Baronius. Did you watch Lakoff’s video, though?

  • Baronius

    I watched the video. Pretty simplistic on political matters. I don’t listen to Dobson, so I don’t know about his analysis of child-rearing, but I somehow doubt that the whole “usually beat their wives” riff was fair.

  • Well, Baronius, just because it’s simplistic, doesn’t mean it ain’t so. Liberal ideas/philosophy is also based on (and can be reduced)few simple/simplistic ideas.

    There’s nothing really magical or incomprehensible when it comes to the decisive points of disagreement between liberal and conservative philosophy. It’s more basic than most people suppose.

  • Baronius, Are you mad?and I don’t mean angry…Bush and Cheney made it public knowledge that they preferred to watch Fox!

    I don’t have a link to show you [Ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan exposed Fox News as a propaganda tool for the White House. Apparently the White House gives Fox News specific ‘talking points’ to ensure that their opinions and facts are broadcast through it.]because this video clip was removed ? hhm, by who I wonder

    here’s one for you

    I have to go for now but I’ll be back to fight another day..:)

  • Baronius

    Yeah, but Jeannie, that’s not what you said. You said that only Fox News was allowed access to the Bush White House.

  • Baronius, This was my original comment-

    #19 For the last thirty years we have been told that only the Republicans/Conservatives Really posses family values…HA!

    I have reread all of my comments and cannot find the original reference to Fox news having exclusive coverage to the White House.

    If you find it show me, OK?


  • A follow-up on the stalwarts of family values.

    The saga continues.

  • Breaking news: Palin resigns.

  • We are THRILLED that Sarah Palin has resigned. Now she’s going to see exactly how the GOP machinery operates. It’s a small fraction of the Right that is devoted to her. But with the fall of Ensign and Sanford, the pool of ‘acceptable’ candidates is shrinking. Does this mean that Pawlenty is in? Not a chance. What about Eric Cantor? Frankly, he acts too ‘gay’ to be acceptable. Nobody wants a whiny boy as President.

  • Dan

    Silas, The comment about Larry Craig as liberal penis was a hilarious zinger. (thought you should know)

    Are you “thrilled” for the potential Palin has positioned herself for? I’m not following you.

    Disenchantment with “hope and change” should overcome media cheerleading about early next year I imagine. If Sarah can grab some public exposure as Monday morning quarterback, displaying good policy comprehension, she’ll elevate to maverick/stateswoman.

  • I am thrilled, Dan, because Sarah Palin will now crash and burn or she will become the darling of the Far Right. At which point she’ll crash and burn. While I like Gov. Palin’s spunk and folksy nature, she’s not ready to be President today, tomorrow or 20 years from now. Either way, I am thrilled because her place pon the national scene will not last much longer. And as she’s driven out of the political spotlight it is my deepest hope she takes the Far Right with her. Then, an only then, can moderates and the true Goldwater Conservatives march in like Sherman’s troops and take out Limbaugh, Steele, Hannity and Coulter.

  • NBC’s Chuck Todd, who is often quite insightful, speculated that Palin will spend the next 18 months making LOTS of money on speeches, maybe a radio show, maybe books.

    Then in Dec 2010 or Jan 2011, she may decide to make her move. Or not — if as some others speculated, she’s just sick of politics.

    I’ve been sick of her for almost a year, but I’m not exactly her target audience.

  • She’s going to make a lot of money for a lot of politicians and not necessarily the ones we return to Congress. For the GOP to have a prayer against Barack Obama in 2012, they need someone articulate, attractive and with a keen sense of humor at the right points. The only GOP papabile who has those characteristics is Mitt Romney. The rest are either sleeping around and getting caught or, um, well Sarah Palin.

  • She’s going to be president alright, president of the local hockey mom’s association.

    If anyone is taking the notion that she is a contender as US President seriously, I want the commercial rights to whatever new drug they are taking.

  • Silas,

    Out of interest, who do you think are the ‘true Goldwater’ candidates in the GOP who might be lurking in the wings? Who would you like to see as the party’s candidate in 2012?

  • Baronius

    If this is a tactic to position herself for the presidency, it’s a bad move for two reasons. One, her biggest liabilities have been her lack of experience and her poor articulation. You can work on your articulation while you’re a governor, but you can’t build experience on the lecture circuit. Two, the Republicans generally don’t put youth at the top of the ticket. She’s got a better chance at 2016 or 2020. Heck, she’s in her 40’s. She could have served as governor twice, taken two years off, served in the cabinet for four years, taken two years off to fundraise, and began her 2020 campaign in 2018, at age 54.

  • Dan

    Well, Obamas rise to power has shown us that all the best drugs have already been discovered and distributed to the electorate.

    For further evidence, consider that Hillary was a serious contender.

    As a final “koop de gracy” in the argument, consider Al Franken. In his personal case, there might even be a legitimate clinical application of the drug.

    The notion that Obama will be a formidable opponent in 2012 is to assume a static national condition. It’s much easier for a gullible electorate to be fooled into thinking good times are bad, than to think bad times are good.

    Having less than half the people work for a living, while more than half the people vote for a living is unsustainable.

  • There’s other bad reasons. According to her resignation speech, she thinks lame ducks are a waste of the taxpayer’s money, so if she still holds that opinion when she runs for President, she could only serve for one term. But if she is only going to serve one term, she’d be a lame duck upon her election.

    Also, if the national media and her political opponents are too tough to deal with, it shows little resolve to handle the country’s enemies who are likely a little tougher.

    Time will tell, but right now it seems like a very poor political decision if she wants to be President.

  • Dan

    I took her resignation speech to mean that she didn’t think she could serve Alaska well if she has to spend her energy swatting down frivolous partisan ethics charges.

    Her virtue as a true reformer is bolstered by the disgraceful hounding she’s endured.

    The designed portrayal of her as an intellectual lightweight won’t continue without substance, (realize that you can actually see Russia from Alaska) and as Obama’s cookie crumbles, his unearned status as saviour will suffer. These two things will work in her favor.

  • Dr Dread, in answer to your question, I don’t see a true Goldwater candidate in the pack. Ron Paul is closer to Barry Goldwater than Mitt Romney. I thought about these things today and I’m beginning to believe that the true definition of Conservative is Libertarian. The GOP is a shell of its former self. While formidable, the party’s elite have created a rudderless rank and file. I like former Senator Linc Chaffee (RI), but he’s no longer a member of the GOP. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are akin to the “closet members” of the GOP, but those in the trenches are terrified to cross the establishment for fear of excommunication.

    Ironically, and I’ll probably get slammed for this, Barack Obama is more of a Republican than Democrat. Had he risen through the GOP ranks, the political dynamic of an Obama Presidency would have had even more impact. Those members of Congress with seniority and positions of power are equally worried about Obama as the Far Right but for different reasons. The Obama Presidency is not that far a departure from the previous tenant at the White House. The major difference? G.W. Bush was uninterested. Barack Obama is deliberate.