Secular Right | Reality & Reason

May/11

16

The media joke

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

Donald Trump says he won’t run in 2012:

The publicity-loving New York developer and reality-TV star pulled the plug on his would-be 2012 presidential run Monday afternoon, saying he still believes he’d be best for the job but that he’s not ready to give up on making money in the private sector.

The move came after NBC officials, whose network his “Celebrity Apprentice” airs on, said they would have an answer within 24 hours as to whether or not The Donald would be back for another season next fall.

Always a joke.

·

18 comments

  • Don Kenner · May 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Let’s see…Huckabee out? Check! Liberal loser businessman Trump not running? Check! Let’s-shoot-up-heroin-and-abandon-Israel libertoid congressman out? Wait…he’s still in.

    We’re two thirds home. After that…?

    Although, this Mitch Daniels/Condi Rice ticket that’s floating around the rumor mill is intriguing. Not because Daniels is perfect (far from it) or because Rice was actually good at her job (I thought she sucked wind), but it is better than we might have hoped and they could beat Sir Golfs a Lot, even with his Nobel Peace Prize and a pile o’ dead Libyans. The gods may be working behind the scenes after all!

  • Polichinello · May 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Although, this Mitch Daniels/Condi Rice ticket that’s floating around the rumor mill is intriguing.

    Intriguing in the same way Operation Barbarossa was “intriguing.” Daniels’ personal life will be fodder for the media and SNL, and, other than maybe Cheney, there’s no other figure more associated with Bush’s disastrous foreign policy than Rice.

    On the bright side, Gingrich made another “intriguing” move by attacking Ryan’s plan in over-the-top language more fitting for Chuckie Schumer than a GOP contender. As one Iowa voter fittingly put it, he needs to get out before he manages to make an even bigger fool of himself (if that’s even possible).

  • cc · May 17, 2011 at 2:15 am

    This was inconceivable several months ago but if Sarah Palin wanted the nomination, I could see her getting it without breaking a sweat. Who’s left to effectively stop her?

    Not that she’s showing any interest in running, and not that any Republican is going to win anyway…

  • GTChristie · May 17, 2011 at 2:19 am

    It’s a Republican year until you look at the options. This is a scream.

    Did you know that freshman Marco Rubio R-FL, in his campaign ads for Senate last year (roll the tape), made his name sound like “Mark O’Rubio” and seems to have gotten both the Irish and Hispanic votes? Just thought you might appreciate that. teehee

  • Susan · May 17, 2011 at 2:27 am

    Well, it would be interesting to see Mark O’Rubio run against Barack O’Bama.

  • John · May 17, 2011 at 4:20 am

    I was also going to run for president, but it would have interrupted my modeling career.

  • Don Kenner · May 17, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    “there’s no other figure more associated with Bush’s disastrous foreign policy than Rice.”

    Actually, her approval ratings never dropped like Bush and Cheney’s did. It is quite easy for pols like Rice to run while distancing themselves from their former boss’s disasters (even if they contributed to them) while playing up every success (real or imagined) as being directly part of their influence. It’s done all the time and successfully.

    Of course, in a sane, rational world, her handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict (kick the Jew) would disqualify her.

    At cc:

    Really? No Republican has a chance against Obama? Granted, the field of candidates (at this point) does not inspire, but I’d have to say the race is the Republicans to lose. If polls are any indication, Americans are about as enamored with The Great and Might O right now as Maria Shriver is with the Terminator.

  • Acilius · May 17, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    “Although, this Mitch Daniels/Condi Rice ticket that’s floating around the rumor mill is intriguing.”

    “Intriguing in the same way Operation Barbarossa was “intriguing.” Daniels’ personal life will be fodder for the media and SNL”

    Daniels and Rice have remarkably similar personal lives, in that each of them has been with the same woman for decades. Granted, the Danielses were remarried after a period of divorce, while Rice and Randy Bean have lived together steadily since the 80s, but still, that’s something in common. Also, neither Mrs Daniels nor Ms Bean makes public appearances with her partner. So, yes, Daniels/ Rice would make a most unusual ticket.

  • Polichinello · May 17, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    Actually, her approval ratings never dropped like Bush and Cheney’s did. It is quite easy for pols like Rice to run while distancing themselves from their former boss’s disasters (even if they contributed to them) while playing up every success (real or imagined) as being directly part of their influence. It’s done all the time and successfully.

    In a world with John Stewart and Tina Fey, that won’t happen. As Acilius’ post should prove, a Daniels/Rice ticket would provide endless amounts of snark material for the usual suspects, and will do nothing to encourage the base to come out and vote.

  • Don Kenner · May 18, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    “In a world with John Stewart and Tina Fey, that won’t happen. As Acilius’ post should prove, a Daniels/Rice ticket would provide endless amounts of snark material for the usual suspects, and will do nothing to encourage the base to come out and vote.”

    Okay, I don’t want to beat this to death, but John Stewart and Tina Fey are a given, no matter who gets the nomination. Remember how the political cartoonists skewered Ronald Reagan, depicting him as an ax murderer because he wanted to cut the budget? Could Reagan run today without being mercilessly attacked by the nimrods of “comedy”? I think not.

    As for the base not being encouraged to vote, if they can’t get out to vote against an Obama second term no matter who runs, then we better all just make our peace with statism and liberalism. If the tea party won’t turn out for Daniels, I suggest we all learn to love Big Brother.

  • Polichinello · May 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Okay, I don’t want to beat this to death, but John Stewart and Tina Fey are a given, no matter who gets the nomination.

    Obviously, but you don’t want to give them more of a target than you have to.

  • Acilius · May 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    “Obviously, but you don’t want to give them more of a target than you have to.” True, but at the same time you don’t want to give them less of a target than you have to. The pundits on each side address themselves mainly to the true believers on their own side, motivating them to get up and doing for their party. If one party is saying something that the general public finds worth listening to, the pundits for the other party can be trusted to make fools of themselves and alienate any undecided voters who happen to catch their remarks.

    That applies to policy positions, but also to personalities. Look at how the voting public responded to the Clinton/ Lewinsky matter in the 1998 congressional election. If the Republicans nominate a candidate whose personal life is complicated in the ways that the people expect Republicans’ lives to be complicated, then I suspect that voters will accept that candidate and punish anyone who makes an issue of it, as in 1998 they punished the Republicans for making an issue of the fact that Bill Clinton was what it had been obvious from the start that he was, to wit the sort of man who has sex with young women in his office. On the other hand, if they want the support of voters who make a point of going to the polls to vote against same-sex marriage, Republicans would be foolish to nominate a virtually uncloseted lesbian for vice president.

  • Polichinello · May 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    as in 1998 they punished the Republicans for making an issue of the fact that Bill Clinton was what it had been obvious from the start that he was, to wit the sort of man who has sex with young women in his office.

    The impeachment issue revolved around perjury, and this makes my point. No matter how the “complication” favors one party or the other, the media will maliciously frame it to favor their party. So a candidate with a lot of personal baggage is just not a good choice for the GOP.

    On the other hand, if they want the support of voters who make a point of going to the polls to vote against same-sex marriage…

    That would be a majority of voters, period, as referendum after referendum has shown. Rice’s soi distant lesbianism would also be conjoined with Bush’s failed foreign policy. She’d be a disaster. Let her fade into the obscurity she so richly deserves.

  • Don Kenner · May 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    I guess I’m out of the loop. I didn’t know Rice was a lesbian, closeted or not. I just figured her arrogant demeanor and the fact that she was a university president caused reasonable men to flee from her.

    Maybe she can be Director of Homeland Security in a Romney Administration.

  • Susan · May 19, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    Well, Rice was actually provost of Stanford, not president, but no matter. I had no idea she was gay, either. Doesn’t matter to me. And since Daniels seems very reluctant to run, the point is probably moot.

  • Polichinello · May 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    Information in a blog post’s comments should be taken with a grain of salt, to put it mildly. I granted the claim of “gayness” for the sake of argument. I don’t think the media would let her single status go unremarked in a campaign. That’s for certain.

  • Susan · May 20, 2011 at 12:01 am

    But to denigrate her, or appear to denigrate her, for her sexual preference would be illiberal. Not to speak of tacky. In any case, it’s her business; she hasn’t made it public, nor–as far as I know–has she ever made any anti-gay comments, so it would be difficult to attack her as a hypocrite.

  • Acilius · May 20, 2011 at 2:37 am

    I think a candidate with personal baggage could be okay for the Republicans, provided it was the right kind of personal baggage. Republicans enjoy the support of voters who admire successful businesspeople. Successful businesspeople are often thought to have a certain set of personal failings. So, a Republican candidate would likely be forgiven those failings, and Democratic partisans who made heavy weather of them would likely drive away undecided voters.

    If Donald Trump had been a serious candidate, he would have tested all of these claims. Despite his missteps and bankruptcies, Trump is, all in all, a highly successful businessman. If Republican voters had rallied to his cause, as they may well have done, that would have been strong evidence that what they find most attractive is success in business. He has exhibited all the stereotypical failings of the breed, with his frequent divorces, brassy personal style, coarse tastes, etc. If Republicans had forgiven him those failings, and denunciations of him for them had backfired on Democratic partisans, that would have been strong evidence that the public accepts the vices along with the virtues of the types it admires. One might regret the lost opportunity for an experiment in political science.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me