Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


There is no majority in America that can be built on hypocrisy and inconsistency.
August 20, 2011 6:39 PM   Subscribe

Social Issues are Not Going to Win the Whitehouse by Gary Johnson.
posted by blue_beetle (73 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
That's a pretty good speech, but sane people don't get elected to office in this country.
posted by empath at 6:43 PM on August 20, 2011 [7 favorites]


They're certainly not going to win Michele Bachmann the White House...
posted by hermitosis at 6:43 PM on August 20, 2011


Maybe that guy didn't notice, but the party he thinks he belongs to pulled the rug out from under him around 1964 or so...
posted by rikschell at 6:52 PM on August 20, 2011 [16 favorites]


I disagree. The positive steps President Obama has made on social issues (DADT, among others) is pretty much the only thing that'll make me go out and vote for him next time out. Now, I agree that social issues won't help a Republican win, because of the libertarian/theocrat division in their party.
posted by deadmessenger at 6:56 PM on August 20, 2011 [5 favorites]


Thing is, it's not just that Republicans are wrong on social issues. They're mostly wrong on economic issues as well. But good on him for pointing out the most glaring bits of hypocrisy.
posted by monospace at 6:56 PM on August 20, 2011 [17 favorites]


(is? editing FAIL)
posted by deadmessenger at 6:57 PM on August 20, 2011


Something like 38 out of 50 U.S. states have specifically anti-gay constitutional amendments or statues on the books. My own state of Texas criminalizes gay sex until the law was nullified by the USSC in 2003. Texas school children are still required to learn all about the "consequences" of gayness and that only hetro relationships are morally acceptable.

None of these things would be possible if the American people didnt support them in some broad sense. The Republicans play up "social issues" because they know their audience and they know people freak out at the idea of their son turning out gay or their daughter having an abortion, even if they are okay with those ideas in the abstract.

Americans hate hypocrisy but are simultaneously hypocritical about social issues. Irony.
posted by Avenger at 6:58 PM on August 20, 2011 [5 favorites]


"The Republican Party is about efficient management of the government pocket book. We are the party that can restore economic prosperity to this country."HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Even if he could get the smart vote, what's he gonna win with 10%? And why would I vote for him when there's a perfectly good Socialist Muslim Kenyan to vote for?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:59 PM on August 20, 2011 [14 favorites]


None of these things would be possible if the American people didnt support them in some broad sense.

"Broad" in this sentence means "a majority of people who vote on ballot and referendum issues, most of whom are old cranks."
posted by mightygodking at 7:00 PM on August 20, 2011


Corn dogs are going to win the White House.
posted by hermitosis at 7:00 PM on August 20, 2011 [4 favorites]


"If there is one thing the American people – particularly young, not-yet-jaded Americans — cannot stomach enjoy everyday, it is hypocrisy."

Most of us grew up with hypocrisy. It's as American as those little Apple Pies from Hostess and McDonald's.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:04 PM on August 20, 2011 [9 favorites]


it's the economy, stupid

unfortunately, neither party really seems to have a clue on what to do about that - the democrats are too unsure and powerless - and the republicans too wrong headed and naive

meanwhile, the american people are getting disgusted and pissed off
posted by pyramid termite at 7:06 PM on August 20, 2011 [6 favorites]


For those who care, the actual National Press Club speech which is referenced in the article in the FPP can be viewed on the C-SPAN website.
posted by hippybear at 7:09 PM on August 20, 2011 [2 favorites]


(the transcript is not yet available, but I'm sure will be posted in the next day or three)
posted by hippybear at 7:10 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


Most of us grew up with hypocrisy. It's as American as those little Apple Pies from Hostess and McDonald's.

Back in the day, the apple pie at McDonalds looked like an egg roll.
posted by jonmc at 7:13 PM on August 20, 2011 [7 favorites]


Thank you, Hippybear.
posted by zarq at 7:15 PM on August 20, 2011


Gary Johnson makes me proud to be a New Mexican.

It's a funny thing about the Republican party – all of their good candidates are marginalized, and all of their terrible candidates are pushed into the spotlight. Someday that will have to change if they want to win an election.
posted by koeselitz at 7:17 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


Back in the day, the apple pie at McDonalds was deep fried and had to be held a minimum of a half-hour without being served for fear of causing burns because it was way too hot when it came out of the fryer.
posted by hippybear at 7:18 PM on August 20, 2011 [5 favorites]


Hey you Whitehouse, charade you are.
posted by punkfloyd at 7:20 PM on August 20, 2011 [5 favorites]


And yes, I'm fond of Gary Johnson, and proud to be from New Mexico, too.

If you want stories about going to high school with the children of an early governor of NM, Garrey Carruthers, you'll have to get me drunk first.
posted by hippybear at 7:21 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


"America does not want its government dictating behavior the bedroom, we do not want a government invading personal lives."

While I personally don't want the government dictating behavior in the bedroom or invading personal lives, I think I speak for America when I say Americans don't want people saying they speak for America.

Also:
Social issues may not win the White House, but they may win the nomination to run for it.
posted by Red Loop at 7:27 PM on August 20, 2011 [3 favorites]


I blame the South.
posted by Max Power at 7:32 PM on August 20, 2011 [3 favorites]


Hey you Whitehouse, charade you are.

What does Gary Johnson have to do with the Nationwide Festival of Light?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:33 PM on August 20, 2011


So I hadn't had an apple pie from McDonald's in about 20 years. About a month ago I was on the road and the only place open and available was either a McD's or the Stewart's hot dog. I opted for the apple pie and for the hope that the apples were real. Say what you want about McD's but they can still bring the pie.

New Mexico has had a history of having centrist Republicans. Pete Dominici who served for many years represented NM well. Gary Johnson seems to be at least a thinking candidate. It could just be the comparison to the other potentials, but then again even I would look good against the rest of the republican field.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:36 PM on August 20, 2011


Popeyes Chicken has an apple pie that is a reasonable facsimile of the old McD fried pies. The new McD pies aren't bad, but they aren't the deep fried goodness.
posted by gjc at 7:39 PM on August 20, 2011 [3 favorites]


Americans hate hypocrisy

Only when they see it in others.
posted by doctor_negative at 7:50 PM on August 20, 2011 [25 favorites]


People don't want the government in their own bedrooms, but they sure as heck seem to want the government to dictate what goes on in other people's bedrooms. "If I do it, it's not perverse, but if I don't like it, I want someone to stop other people from doing it."

If the voters maintain hypocrisy in their own hearts, they will want people who support their hypocrisy to be leaders.
posted by Mozai at 7:52 PM on August 20, 2011 [4 favorites]


I like Gary Johnson and his stances on social issues are much better than the rest of his party, but those social issues seem to be pretty much all that separates him from a standard Republican...

...and those stances are one of the main reasons he won't win the primary or the White House.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:05 PM on August 20, 2011


He's really missing the mark - Republicans are mistaken on social issues and economic issues.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:24 PM on August 20, 2011 [2 favorites]


There is no majority in America that can be built on hypocrisy and inconsistency.

That sounds like denial.
posted by Brian B. at 8:42 PM on August 20, 2011 [4 favorites]


Max Power, blame an -ism of some kind please, rather than an entire region.
posted by rahnefan at 8:48 PM on August 20, 2011 [3 favorites]


The next election will be won by fraud, and intellectual fraud, that serves the energy, pharmacy and military cartels. Banks will continue to wound the most vulnerable, in order to play hard overseas. The international consortium of haves will have it their way at any cost. The big game is simple, hyper-religiosity, is one of the shells in the game, mollifying the financially wounded, and pride wounded unemployed with promises of divine grace and retribution for those of different lifestyle, and belief. The serious wannabe, well paid, acolytes of even more run amok business is the second shell in the game. Then the idea that the Earth has unlimited resources, but in case we run out, we can go to Mars, is the third shell. The third shell is the most hurtful, because it hides outrageous cost overruns of the defense establishment. The new ruling consortium of corporations will do, say, manipulate anything to keep on top, everyone is potentially a shill for them. The social issues just keep people feeling as if they are doing good, doing something, besides sliding into poverty.
posted by Oyéah at 9:00 PM on August 20, 2011 [9 favorites]


Max Power, blame an -ism of some kind please, rather than an entire region.

Southernism?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:06 PM on August 20, 2011 [6 favorites]


Back in the day, the apple pie at McDonalds looked like an egg roll.

Oh my god, I miss those little buggers.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:00 PM on August 20, 2011 [2 favorites]


Hm. Seems sane enough about social matters. Too bad he's a still a lunatic about economics.

Eliminate the corporate income tax so that America will once again be a great place to start a business.

Good luck with that, pal. See where it gets you.
posted by spitefulcrow at 10:11 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also:

Government should cease subsidizing or giving favorable treatment to Internet service providers and content-creators. 'Net Neutrality' leads to a government role in the Internet that can only lead to unwanted regulation.
The FCC should not be allowed to create rules regulating content, Internet speeds, and pricing for services. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the content marketplace. The Internet should remain independent, accessible and market-based.


Yes, because letting Comcast and AT&T establish a duopoly in a majority of markets has worked out so well for the consumer.
posted by spitefulcrow at 10:14 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure Marijuana legalization is a social issue.
posted by delmoi at 10:23 PM on August 20, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eliminate the corporate income tax so that America will once again be a great place to start a business.

You know what stopped me from running my own business ? It wasn't taxes.

It's "what he fuck do I do if my kid breaks his arm at soccer practice ?"

Or, more simply, I couldn't leave my job with the sweet low cost health insurance to take a risk on my own with health insurance costs easily 4 times as high as any tax or resource liability I was likely to have.

That one thing is the biggest barrier to entry in America, and it's little wonder that entrenched business interests love it so.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:25 PM on August 20, 2011 [55 favorites]


Straight up, if this guy voted nationally like he speechifies, I'd vote for him in the general. Lunatic economics from the executive don't especially bother me, because we've seen that the executive has relatively little fiscal power in the current climate. And elevating a social liberal to nominal leadership of the Republican Party would make for a very interesting four years.

Basically, I wish Republicans were as anarchist as they sometimes claim to be.
posted by Errant at 11:15 PM on August 20, 2011


The positive steps President Obama has made on social issues (DADT, among others) is pretty much the only thing that'll make me go out and vote for him next time out.

What's weird is that he actually set his Justice Department to keep DADT in place. It was courts that overruled it and legislators that overturned it, and his administration kept challenging it to keep it around through the whole damn mess.

It's frankly bizarre that he gets any credit at all, when he has — through his actions as President, at least — actually been an active impediment to progress on GLBT civil rights.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:46 PM on August 20, 2011 [2 favorites]


The next election will be won by fraud, and intellectual fraud, that serves the energy, pharmacy and military cartels. Banks will continue to wound the most vulnerable, in order to play hard overseas. The international consortium of haves will have it their way at any cost.

Obama?
posted by BigSky at 11:49 PM on August 20, 2011 [1 favorite]


And though GLBT civil rights is an issue near and dear to my heart, those aren't the only civil rights that he and his supporters have seemed comfortable with dismissing as liberal fantasies. Why is Guantanamo Bay still open, for example?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:50 PM on August 20, 2011 [5 favorites]


Yes, because letting Comcast and AT&T establish a duopoly in a majority of markets has worked out so well for the consumer.

Wait. You get two choices???? Lucky bastards.
posted by schmod at 12:22 AM on August 21, 2011


You cannot say social issues wont win the election if you are self-described as low-tax. Taxation is a social issue. How else do we pay for those programs that put the poor to work and make sure their children don't die in the streets of malnutrition and disease?

I am not sure how this blog post by a candidate is significant if it is the very philosophy that drives the right. Or even as a statement from an unlikely candidate for office. Otherwise Jello Biafra would like another post.
posted by munchingzombie at 12:35 AM on August 21, 2011


Wait. You get two choices???? Lucky bastards.

I wish. In a good portion (most?) of Massachusetts, only Comcast supplies broadband internet access.

If you have a problem, customer service reps openly tell you to fuck off because they know you're SOL if you need internet.
posted by WhitenoisE at 1:34 AM on August 21, 2011


They're pimping this loser all over 2+2 and now I've got to read about him on Metafilter as well?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:24 AM on August 21, 2011


Why is Guantanamo Bay still open, for example?

Rhaomi: Blame for the continuation of this fiasco lies with the legislators who continue to impede its closure, and, more broadly, with the American electorate, whose apparent fear of Supermax-housed terrorists over the degradation of justice enables congressional conservatives to vote this way in veto-proof majorities. What the White House has been pursuing lately with regard to the legal fate of the detainees is unattractive, but about the best option there is within the restrictions that have been drawn.

Lots more detail here.
posted by cashman at 5:22 AM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you need proof that social issues will play a role in the 2012 national and state elections, look no further than the Republican Senate debates in Florida yesterday.
All of the candidates, former U.S. Sen. George LeMieux, former state Rep. Adam Hasner, retired Army Col. Mike McAlister and business man Craig Miller, all came out against gay marriage, according to the Tallahassee Democrat:
When asked about New York's recent legalization of gay marriage, the four Republicans said they supported the federal "defense of marriage act," which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
"I think that's how God intended it to be," said Miller. "This direction, this slope we're on, takes our country in a direction that we need not go."
McAlister said that, as a 10th Amendment advocate, he would prefer to leave marriage to the states "but it has to be protected." He said variations of the issue have been on the ballot in 32 states -- including Florida, which outlawed gay marriage in a 2008 referendum -- and that "tens of millions of people have voted" to define the union.
Orlando attorney John Stemberger, a founder of the Family Policy Council, ran the constitutional amendment campaign on marriage three years ago. He said the four Republicans articulated strong conservative positions in the debate and that support of social conservatives and tea party activists was crucial to electing Gov. Rick Scott and Rubio last year, along with some members of the U.S. House and local governing boards.
"If history is any indicator, if the social conservatives and tea party can get on the same page as a candidate, they can determine the nominee," said Stemberger. "They are the largest and most cohesive voting bloc of the Republican Party."
And, yes, you can be sure all four candidate blasted so-called "activist judges" who would approve equality. Remarked Hasner, "I'm just very hopeful that we're going to have a Republican president who's going to appoint strict constructionists."
Remember that glimmer of hope when Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels called for a truce on social issues? Yeah, that ship has clearly passed. The libertarian Tea Party and the traditionally anti-gay social conservative movements are now working in tandem. That doesn't mean, however, that such blatantly discriminatory politics will necessarily win over voters.
posted by robbyrobs at 6:24 AM on August 21, 2011


They're pimping this loser all over 2+2 and now I've got to read about him on Metafilter as well?

No you don't. You don't have to read the thread; you don't have to comment in the thread you don't want to read. Just find something else on MetaFilter.
posted by hippybear at 6:24 AM on August 21, 2011 [5 favorites]


Social issues may not win the White House, but they sure as hell can, and do, win House and Senate races. And, as the recent debt ceiling debacle showed, the Republicans can absolutely dictate policy from the Capitol, and marginalize a Democrat in the White House. All they need is a couple more seats in the Senate, and it'll be clear-sailing for whatever loon agenda they want to shove down the country's throat.

Sure, having a Republican in the WH would make things easier, but having a Dem in the WH gives them a patsy to blame everything on.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:26 AM on August 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


Johnson's not the only one, this comment almost made my brain explode.
posted by Mcable at 6:36 AM on August 21, 2011


Mcable: "Johnson's not the only one, this comment almost made my brain explode."

Even though some Republicans seem to think Huntsman is a sham candidate, he is the only one who I'm really afraid of. He seems so reasonable. Compared to Johnson, Huntsman is more reasonable. In the end though, he's got the same wrongheaded economic policy positions as any other Republican.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:31 AM on August 21, 2011


Reason.com:
“I believe fundamentally in the right for a woman to choose an abortion. I happen to believe in evolution.” He said that drug prohibition is the source of “75 percent of the violence” along the U.S.-Mexico border, and that “if we can’t connect the dots between prohibition and violence now, I don’t know that we ever will.” Johnson also dismissed the idea of building a wall (or a fence, or a moat) along the border, and called instead for a simplification of U.S. immigration policy, and for the estimated 12 million undocumented workers currently residing in the United States to receive work visas—“not green cards or citizenship.”

“I believe in global warming and that it’s man-made,” Johnson said. He doesn’t however, believe in regulatory schemes to reduce carbon emissions or greenhouse gases, saying that such policies would harm businesses while doing little to help the environment. Besides, he added cheekily, “in the future, the sun will grow to encompass the Earth. Global warming is in our future.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:39 AM on August 21, 2011


What's weird is that he actually set his Justice Department to keep DADT in place. It was courts that overruled it and legislators that overturned it, and his administration kept challenging it to keep it around through the whole damn mess.

That's the "I wanna hate Obama no matter what" view.

The reality-based view is that hew pushed for and signed legislation eliminating it, and in fact made it possible by a large-scale deal in which the GOP agreed not to filibuster it.

The mendacious lies about this are based on the fact that he wanted the timetable for full repeal to follow the one laid out in the law. Some others felt that it should happen before the military got their shit straight on how it was going to make the transition work.

In the end it was on the law's timetable. Not some grandstanding district court judge.

Haters gonna hate.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:00 AM on August 21, 2011 [4 favorites]


What's weird is that you continue to cling to this Obama secretly hates teh gheys even after he's delivered.
posted by humanfont at 9:58 AM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Even though some Republicans seem to think Huntsman is a sham candidate, he is the only one who I'm really afraid of. He seems so reasonable. Compared to Johnson, Huntsman is more reasonable. In the end though, he's got the same wrongheaded economic policy positions as any other Republican.

Huntsman happily tweeted about believing in global warming and evolution yesterday. He claims to be a Mormon by heritage, which causes major problems for him in Utah. He supports health care reform. He scores "worse" than most Democrats on Republican scorecards. He's got as much cash as Romney. I'm not one to gamble on presidents. I would rather see Obama versus Huntsman, than Obama versus Romney or Perry.
posted by Brian B. at 10:31 AM on August 21, 2011


Huntsman polls at 1% in New Hampshire.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:57 AM on August 21, 2011


It doesn't matter what Huntsman personally believes. Bs appointees tithe federal bench, cabinet positions and executive branch would be drawn from some segment of the no nothing Republican base.
posted by humanfont at 11:08 AM on August 21, 2011


Huntsman polls at 1% in New Hampshire.

Because he's in the wrong party nationally. He was politically raised to succeed in Utah, where a moderate Republican fills the cultural role of a raging liberal. I wouldn't be surprised if he switched parties, or more realistically, by creating an independent party out of true disdain for a tea party candidate on the right in 2016. His money will be well spent if he does.
posted by Brian B. at 11:08 AM on August 21, 2011


Umm, there is nothing but social conservatism left to the Republican party. Reagan made them the party of free money. Clinton stole their fiscal conservative position. Bush expanded their free money position. And the media ignores the few fiscal conservatives.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:15 AM on August 21, 2011


Huntsman is not in the wrong party, his views are solidly moderate Republican, the Cato Institute has praised his tax policy.

The only universe in which the right party for him is the Democrats is one in which they have abandoned their economic vision and replaced it with the Republican one.


Oh, right.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:17 AM on August 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


The only universe in which the right party for him is the Democrats is one in which they have abandoned their economic vision and replaced it with the Republican one.

Perhaps, but the big change of the last decade, largely unreported, is that independent voters now represent a larger percentage than either Republican or Democrat, and they are mostly unsatisfied about it, and so a "center" party is waiting to happen to claim the spoils of their discontent. This would favor someone's own money in such an event. I would further speculate that the tea party will control the Republicans in due time, leaving Huntsman without a party to pretend to belong to, and culturally at odds with the Christian right too.
posted by Brian B. at 11:29 AM on August 21, 2011


Independent != Center.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:35 AM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


That's dead on and I've been saying that shit about the GOP relegating themselves to minority status as they look and moralize (mostly hypocritcally, as it is an ideal even they cannot achieve being world-class sinners and "weirdo's," and all too human, themselves) less and less like the majority of the nation.

The thing I'm beginning to fear is that, there's the nation reaches a fulcrum point or a threshold where economic concerns over-ride all others.

But even then, it seems like the TP and the GOP, are already beginning to hedge their bets and listen to their strategists more carefully. See for example Christine O'Donnell storming off the Piers Morgan show when being asked to comment on gay marriage and gays in the military.

I do worry, that Bachmann, Palin, even a Perry and the rest of the GOP/TP, begins moving back to the center by saying social issues are more of a "personal" decision and what they really care about is mostly fiscal issues and the economy.

I hope it puts a hole in the GOP. Because regardless of what the say, can anyone with a straight face say the GOTP doesn't intend, if it crazily recapture all three branch, to declare a mandate on par with a Second American revolution (O'Donnell already using that term), that would re-write the basic principals of the country to line up with an anti-middle class, dominionist-type semi-theocracy that would see this nation reduced to something akin to China's repressive, wildly successful capitalist tyranny. One where economic concerns outwieght all civil concerns and human rights and freedoms as being directly extended from the corporate-world?

How many rights could be obliterated at that point?
posted by Skygazer at 11:38 AM on August 21, 2011


Andrew Sullivan: Huntsman's Great Opportunity

Jon Huntsman Wakes Up
posted by homunculus at 12:26 PM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know, "reality-based" is kind of an interesting phrase. I keep hearing it, but I've never been sure what it meant. Probably I'm just not real enough.
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 12:34 PM on August 21, 2011


How many rights could be obliterated at that point?

Yeah, one of the things which was mentioned on Gay USA this week was that the ending of DADT isn't actually a change in legal policy -- it's simply a degree, which means it can be undone (that is, DADT could be reinstated by a future Commander In Chief).

I'm not sure exactly how true that is, but it's important to realize that nothing actually is set in stone and that even if some obliteration of rights is determined to be illegal, it could be years of those rights being stepped on before they're reinstated, with a great amount of horror in the meantime.

All these matters... are very fragile and change can come more quickly than any of us imagine once the dominos are lined up properly.
posted by hippybear at 12:42 PM on August 21, 2011


Link: The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:44 PM on August 21, 2011 [4 favorites]


"I'm pretty sure Marijuana legalization is a social issue."

Regulation of currently illegal drugs is a health and human rights issue.
posted by docgonzo at 4:44 PM on August 21, 2011


Haters gonna hate.

That's lazy. I voted for the guy. I just think his capitulation to Christian extremists on gay civil rights is pretty shitty.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:55 PM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Regulation of currently illegal drugs is a health and human rights issue.

It's a social issue too, people aren't crazy about intoxication in this country. Even booze, in places.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:05 PM on August 21, 2011


Blame for the continuation of this fiasco lies with the legislators

Perhaps it is more appropriate to lie the blame over policy on a military facility with the Command-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, instead of with unnamed, nameless, anonymous legislators who may be convenient scapegoats, but who were never and are not responsible for the policy of the executive branch.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:08 PM on August 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Huntsman is not in the wrong party, his views are solidly moderate Republican, the Cato Institute has praised his tax policy.

This is, of course, the larger threat of Huntsman that we're only starting to see, in that he is very effectively shifting the line of what makes a "moderate" to merely being a non-insane Republican. Hunstman being a "moderate" makes Obama a radical liberal too far to the left of mainstream politics, which means that once again progressives get the joy of having a Democratic president who everyone thinks is an extremist leftist while he pisses on the bulk of the wishlists of any of his supporters who actually wish he was.

And of course, as we already see a few comments later, professional self-appointed sensible person Andrew Sullivan has begun the Hunstman tongue bath, as he's found his passion for this cycle in the form of that fantasy Republican that allows him to support Randian business sense while stifling the self-loathing of promoting the success of the party that largely wishes people like him were set on fire.

I imagine, honestly, that gaming the refs like this has been Huntsman's plan all along and he's angling to become The Republican That It's Okay for Democrats to Vote For™. Keep in mind that unlike 2008, numerous states have switched to proportioned delegates in the primaries like the Democrats had-- and a lot of states are going to have a lot of bored moderate Democrats who have nothing better to do.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:01 PM on August 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


« Older Marcus Chown's top 10 bonkers things about the uni...  |  Bon Iver has released a video ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments