GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't find Michele Bachmann strange-looking in general, to me she just has a look I associate with certain N.-Euro white people--very shallow-set, large, clear bright eyes over strong rounded cheekbones, which can sometimes read to others as a 'perpetually wired' look (HRC, for one, has this too, actually). I agree the cover pic is particularly unflattering and that Newsweek almost certainly chose it for that reason; it's a quick and easy way of conveying, Here is an intensely polarizing person. Cheap tactic, sure, but it's not a highbrow magazine; a big part of their political coverage involves trying to capture personas as opposed to policies and how the public responds to them. Their politician covers often have a caricatured feel and that is inherently trivializing, to both the topic and the person.
 
Last edited:
obama-newsweek-cover.jpg



And Obama said, Let there be light and there was light.

Not that I'm implying media bias or anything.
 
I think her eyes look a bit off.

You do? I don't, not in those first two pictures. Maybe my eyes are off. Just like Ramona she can't help it if she was born that way. I don't think her "rage" does that to her eyes. Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. I think Newsweek should do a cover all about Mitt's hair.

That's just what it is and I couldn't think of it-40 Year Old Virgin picture! Aha, Jon and I are of one mind and were really meant to be together :wink:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stew...c-rep-michele-bachmann-shame-on-you-newsweek/

It seems that Newsweek’s cover photo of Rep. Michele Bachmann has already proven to be a game-changer: it got Jon Stewart to defend the Republican presidential candidate for an entire segment– not an easy feat. Stewart blasted the magazine for deliberately finding an unflattering photo of the Congresswoman, arguing “you’ve got to go pretty far” to find an unflattering one, listing examples of Bachmann making “yelling into a bullhorn” look attractive, and giving editor Tina Brown a dose of her own medicine.

Stewart began his argument compiling evidence for why he rarely listens to conservatives when they complain that the “liberal” media is out to get them. “Conservatives hate the liberal media so much,” he joked, “they’re willing to accept arguments based on science!” Then he proceeded to do precisely that– attack an allegedly liberal publication for unfairly attacking a conservative. Don’t expect this to happen again anytime soon.

Just putting the photo up elicited laughter from the audience, and Stewart was clear to note the cover’s intention: “that’s a shit picture of Michele Bachmann,” he noted, “and clearly not an accidentally shitty picture.” He went on to argue that of all the things one can say about the Tea Party leader, “one thing you cannot say about Michele Bachmann is that she is not photogenic.” He then showed a variety of Rep. Bachmann photos that could, he joked, pass as “shampoo commercials” and made even the least attractive political activity look good. “You’ve got to go pretty far out of your way to find a crappy photo of Michele Bachmann, and you did,” he quipped.

Stewart then noted Brown’s argument that the photo was illustrative of the Representative’s intensity, which Stewart did not buy one bit. “That’s not an ‘I’m galvanizing the voters in Iowa’ picture,’” arguing instead that the cover looked like “the female version of The 40-Year-Old Virgin.’” “You used that photo in a petty attempt to make Michele Bachmann look crazy,” he scolded, suggesting instead, “that’s what her words are for.” He then put together a far “scarier” portrait of Rep. Bachmann– made entirely of her quotes. “Shame on you, Newsweek, and shame on your editor Tina Brown,” he railed, showing the least flattering photo of Brown he could find.
 
Maybe she skipped that part :|


Bachmann’s ‘Must-Read’ List Included A Book That Claims Blacks Were ‘Better Off In Nearly Every Way’ Under Slavery | ThinkProgress

In 2002, then-state Sen. Bachmann’s campaign posted a “must-read” list of books on her web site. Included in the list were the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and a book titled, “Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee,” authored by J. Steven Wilkins. The Lee biography includes this apologetic passage:

Northerners were often shocked and offended by the familiarity that existed as a matter of course between the whites and blacks of the old South. This was one of the surprising and unintended consequences of slavery. Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded on racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause.

The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith.

Wilkins goes on to claim that slavery existed on a “relationship of trust and esteem,” that positive race relations may have progressed further if the pro-slavery South had won the war, and that Lee, despite being a slave-owner himself, “never held any animosity for blacks.”

After explaining the “cruelty and barbarism” of “pagan” Africa, he goes on:

The fact was (and is) easily demonstrable that, taken as a whole, there is no question that blacks in this country, slavery notwithstanding, were “immeasurably better off” in nearly every way [than they were in Africa].

In Lee’s view, however, emancipation could only be accomplished successfully if it was gradual. Time was needed for the sanctifying effects of Christianity to work on the black race and fit its people for freedom. [...]

Abolitionism was not the best answer.


The idea that the relationships between white slave owners and black slaves were not founded on racial animosity has no basis in history. Whites viewed themselves as inherently superior to blacks, who were bought and sold as property and, for population counts, were worth only three-fifths of a white person. The idea that sanctifying blacks through Christianity made them “immeasurably better off” than they would have been in Africa, meanwhile, ignores the utter loss of humanity caused by enslavement. It ignores the untold number of blacks who died on slave ships, the sale of blacks at auctions as if they were livestock, the families split up at an owner’s whim, and the loss of all basic human rights, not least of which was their own free will.

Bachmann has a history of using slavery analogies, and she has made multiple mistakes regarding American history already in her campaign. None, however, is nearly as disturbing as her love for a book that attempts to explain away the horrors of slavery by rewriting history to make it seem like it was a minor price to pay for the sanctifying favors whites did blacks by bringing them to America as slaves.
 
I've seen this thought process sprouting up more in conservative revisionist writings as of late.

We even had a poster in here that bought into an article about this. Slaves were treated like family.
 
I've seen this thought process sprouting up more in conservative revisionist writings as of late.

We even had a poster in here that bought into an article about this. Slaves were treated like family.

Did liberals ruin yet another good thing in history? :tsk:





Let's immigration reform comes up in the next year, too, so the GOP hopefuls really can alienate some more minorities.
 
Perry is going to announce he is running according to the latest reports.

Down to Perry and Mittens. Everyone else is already out of this race.
 
That sucks. I REALLY want to see Palin try and talk about things and have a crack at answering a question. Don't deny me my entertainment!
 
Palin won't run.

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said at one point, failing to silence protestors who continued to challenge him. “Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

“It goes into their pockets!” some shouted back.

“Whose pockets?” Romney said. “People’s pockets. Ok. Human beings, my friend.”
 
The answer is clearly someone with several screws loose and a poor grasp of reality in any and all forms.

I say this as someone who has developed Tory leanings over the past couple of years, due to the loose screws of the Canadian Left. But when it comes to batshit insanity, nobody can take the cake more than the U.S. Republican Party (the Democratic Party are a notable second place, though :| ).
 
I don't like Perry for a lot of reasons. Too conservative, too public with his faith. But he did create a lot of jobs in Texas and that will appeal to many Americans.
 
Obama will get reelected because everyone the Republicans will throw up there suck.

Much like how bush got reelected.

Problem is we never realize that both of these parties are run by douchebags who have only their party's well being at heart, not America.

We NEED more options. Otherwise our nation will fail, like every empire before us.

The two party system is an abject failure.
 
Obama will get reelected because everyone the Republicans will throw up there suck.

Much like how bush got reelected.

Problem is we never realize that both of these parties are run by douchebags who have only their party's well being at heart, not America.

We NEED more options. Otherwise our nation will fail, like every empire before us.

The two party system is an abject failure.

Absolutely its a failure. America should have multiple parties like Canada, the UK and other countries do.

I'd like to vote for someone who's middle of the road and moderate like me, but there's no money for them!

Its all about who has the money to campaign, and unfortunately there's no centrist party that has the big bucks.
 
Very informative and entertaining night. Biggest news of the night...


Newt's back. :applaud:
Has he figured out how to talk to regular people yet / dug up some reserve campaign money from somewhere? So far his "run" has been both baffling, a non-event, bizarre, and yet still interesting.
 
I only watched part of the debate, but from what I saw I'm thinking Bachmann stands to gain the most from it in the short term?
 
Last edited:
A question to liberals: How do you feel about Ron Paul?
Fun and makes some good points but is also not really living in reality and has the tenancy to be your crazy uncle in gov't.

He's the right's Dennis Kucinich.
 
Fun and makes some good points but is also not really living in reality and has the tenancy to be your crazy uncle in gov't.

He's the right's Dennis Kucinich.

Interesting, I was under the impression that he would probably be the most acceptable choice in the eyes of the left
 
i have been in a vortex all day -- did i hear correctly that Santorum expressed concern for the rights of homosexuals in Iran?
 
Interesting, I was under the impression that he would probably be the most acceptable choice in the eyes of the left
I don't speak for the "left".

Paul talks clearly, openly and honestly, without veneer, which is why he will never have a legitimate shot at the presidency.

Just rewatched the debate tonight and Paul speaks honestly on Iran, and then Captain Dipshit jumps all over him with the usual Neocon BS clusterfuck shitstorm as any of the other little puppets on stage would have done (with the exception of Mittens because he is a smooth operator).

Ron Paul is too smart and much too honest to be a Republican in the current party.
 
i have been in a vortex all day -- did i hear correctly that Santorum expressed concern for the rights of homosexuals in Iran?

Yes and no.

It was a rather long exchange between him and Ron Paul about Iran.

Ron Paul is against most wars. He said he didn't care if Iran got nukes. He then listed all the countries that had them, that the USSR had them all during the cold war and that we talked to them. He said that we should have dialog with Iran.

Santorum went on a bit of a tirade about how terrible Iran is, the Israelis can not sleep at night because of the fear of attack. Then he listed a whole bunch of Iranian sins, no free press, bad treatment of women, etc, in the list was repression of gays. It sounded kind of funny. But, I am sure if he got a follow up on it, he would have said he does not believe gays should be in jail.
 
I only watched part of the debate, but from what I saw I'm thinking Bachmann stands to gain the most from it in the short term?

I watched it all.

Romney gets the win, came out not bloodied.

Bachmann gets the best bump, came in second. She did not misspeak at all. She seemed reasonable, in that she stood on her principals.

Pawlenty is the biggest loser. He looked bad attacking Bachmann and she more than held her own against him.
 
I don't know what was said specifically re Iran, but if it was the full spectrum of standard 'neocon shitstorm' stuff - anyone who suggests any kind of attack on Iran should not be allowed within a mile of the White House. That would be an amazing exercise in self-defeat. One for the All Time Cock Up Hall of Fame, whether it comes from the US or Israel. I hope there's no-one still advocating that.
 
The crowd at the GOP primary debate in Ames, Iowa did not appreciate Byron York asking Michele Bachmann about this part of a recent Washington Post profile on Thursday night:

"He is her godly husband," said Peter Bachmann, Dr. Bachmann's oldest brother, who lives on the family dairy farm across the eastern border in Wisconsin. "The husband is to be the head of the wife, according to God." It is a philosophy that Michele Bachmann echoed to congregants of the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, when she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. "The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands," she said.


When York asked about whether she was submissive, the crowd booed and hissed, loudly.

Bachmann batted it aside. "I respect my husband, he's a wonderful godly man, and we respect each other."
 
Obama will get reelected because everyone the Republicans will throw up there suck.

Much like how bush got reelected.

Problem is we never realize that both of these parties are run by douchebags who have only their party's well being at heart, not America.

We NEED more options. Otherwise our nation will fail, like every empire before us.

The two party system is an abject failure.

The U.S. would need to turn into a parliamentary democracy most likely. That generally means a weaker presidency (although France is a notable example of an exception) and the Speaker of the House becomes the "Prime Minister." The nature of the Senate might have to change too, either being abolished or perhaps appointed by state governments.

In other words, the changes required to make this environment favourable might require constitutional amendments that will never get passed in a million years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom