« The Usual Suspects | Main | Adam Curtis and the Alaei Brothers »

Friday, June 17, 2011


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are We Comfortable?:


larry kurtz

Brooks at the Aspen Institute: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/07/16/midday2/

Romney has been out of office too long and, as a Zionist cult member, he has zero support among southern christians. Ron Paul is not a governor and Rick Perry is a human rights nightmare who routinely executes innocent people. Santorum is not a governor and since PA is solidly blue, he is not Veepable.

Brooks and ip called Pawlenty/Rubio in February. It's just that simple.

larry kurtz

it is not impossible to see a Pawlenty/Bachmann ticket that wouldn't carry Minnesota. This is gonna be so fun.

larry kurtz

pungent and colorful, i love it.

Donald Pay

I attribute Romney's recent surge among Republicans as a backlash to what is happening in states where Republican governors have adopted the ultra-rightist approach to governing. Republicans have special needs children and elderly parents, too. Middle management Republicans have lost jobs and benefits. When they show up at town hall meetings, they don't appreciate being called names. They see how the Tea Party attack on the middle class is playing out as an attack on their and their children's future and their rights. In short, they have seen the way the Tea Party operates, and they don't like it.


Mr. Kurtz: I would love to see Rubio on a ticket eventually, but I don't think a Pawlenty-Rubio ticket is likely. However, Pawlenty might be aiming for the Southern vote you say Romney can't get! Apparently, some are accusing him of a southern drawl out of nowhere! http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/16/pawlenty-southern-drawl/

Donald: Which states do you think have taken an ultra-rightist approach to governing?

Stan Gibilisco

Here's another theory: Republicans are moving toward Romney because they think he's the only candidate in their party who has a realistic chance of beating Obama in the general election. Pure pragmatism. The Republicans sorely need a good dose of pragmatism, and maybe a cold shower, too, the sooner the better.

Maybe Romney can win the election in November 2012, but he'll have a mighty hard time of it. He'd do well to find a running mate that will appeal to the Hispanic electorate +and+ the Tea Party contingent, if that's possible. He'll do even better if he can capture the Jewish electorate.


Stan: Good point. But, then again, what's the use in winning if all you win is more of the same?

Stan Gibilisco

Miranda: Mitt Romney is no Barack Obama!


Stan: Romney does seem to have a better record on spending.

But in many ways he and Obama are similar. One of the main criticisms of Obama is that he's a bit of an empty suit. Romney, who is known for his flip flops, suffers from a similar problem.

He is also weak on social issues, so for those of us who care about the right to life and other social issues, Romney looks only slightly better than the sitting president.

And then there's "Romneycare," which, while not identical to "Obamacare" is similar. It has also been disastrous. (See: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0412romneycare_a_big_bust/)

So, as I see it, he's not much different.

Mike Cooper

Romney, Bachmann, Pawlenty, Santorum, etc, will not make a difference in which party wins. People will vote for Obama or against Obama. It is that simple. Romney makes me ill, particularly on the issue of life, and I would never vote for him in a primary. However, he would be much better than Obama.

On a slightly different note, if Romney becomes president, he will not be able to spend like Bush did. Republicans in the House will be much more apt to hold a president accountable on fiscal issues, even one from their own party.

George Mason

Miranda; I believe you are to quick to dismiss the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party influence is at its zenith. It defined the debate in last years election that overthrew the establishment in the House and moved the center in the Senate to the right. The Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have read the handwriting and have been sounding like part of the movement ever since. Pelosi and Reid are incapable of understanding what's happening but many of their members are capable of reading the results and are suddenly acting like responsible adults. Listen carefully to all the announced presidential candidates and the Tea Party influence is evident in all of them including Romney. Romney has not disowned the healthcare debacle in Massachusetts, but he keeps repeating that it doesn't fit for all states (truer words were never spake). At this point the Tea Party factions do not need to hold rally's. The calls for freedom and responsibility on the part of the elected representatives has been heard and heeded.

larry kurtz

The Prez in Puerto Rico means we Dems are embracing the Tequila Party and rejecting the class slavery offered by the earth hating redstaters financing the Koch/TEA fascistas. If the failure of the 2000 election proved anything, it's that Florida is why Rubio will be Veeped by whichever ex-governor emerges from the 2012 GOP slime.

larry kurtz

The christian wing is a murder of Beckian crows, PP, er, GM.


Mike: That is true to a large degree. In some ways, Obama may be fighting an uphill battle. But the Republicans could certainly blow their chance by running the wrong candidate. The Fat Lady hasn't even taken her sheet music out yet.

George: Good points. I agree with you that The Tea Party's message has been heard, but I am not as confident that it will be heeded. The tone has changed, somewhat in Washington, but not enough so that Tea Partiers can claim "mission accomplished."

Mr. Kurtz: You're a bit too cryptic for me, this time around. Beckian crows?

larry kurtz

a flock of sheep, a tiding of magpies, a murder of crows. Glenn Beck is a leader of the crows that feed on carrion, ergo...

Stan Gibilisco

And now for something
from far from the body
but close to the bone ...



"then there's "Romneycare," which, while not identical to 'Obamacare'"

Romney was the Governor of a severe Blue State. The legislation that exists now in Mass. is not even close to the legislation that Romney pushed for. Can you explain this? Can you explain why all of Romney's veto attempts were overridden by a Democrat State Legislature, and reconcile that with your comment?



Meaning....even though Romney has taken responsiblity for the Health Care is Mass., doesn't mean that it is "RomneyCare."


The next election is not about the Republican......it is about whether Obama deserves to stay in office. This can be validated throughout American History. It doesn't matter whether Conservatives will get the candidate they want, the election is a judgement of Obama. If the Conservatives get a Candidate that can actually heal the patient, instead of just stopping the bleeding, then it will be complete victory, but we must stop the bleeding before healing the wound, and that is a reasonable first step.

It is important to make the Left in this country beleive that The Republicans are disorganized, and just as important to make them beleive that Republican turnout maybe in question.

Refer to the Book "How to Cook a Frog", Chapter 1.


Jimi: That's a fair criticism. However, Romney signed the bill into law and he continues to support and defend it. So I do think what I said was fair. It absolutely matters whether or not conservatives get a candidate they want. Obama is only a small part of a large, bi-partisan problem. Republicans, for instance, have been as guilty as Democrats when it comes to irresponsible spending. Whether Obama stays in office or not, the wound will keep bleeding if both sides continue to support the status quo.



"Republicans, for instance, have been as guilty as Democrats when it comes to irresponsible spending."

I agree, but there is a difference in the definition of "irresponsible spending."
The spending under Republicans is nothing compared to the Democrats. BY the end of Obama's first term the Democrats will have surpassed the spending of the entire Bush Presidency, and that will all be purely Democratic policy that dictated that spending, not to mention that two years of Bush's Presidency was ditacted by that same Democratic Policy.

"Whether Obama stays in office or not, the wound will keep bleeding if both sides continue to support the status quo."

And nobody will be to blame for that except for the American People. If Americans are not smart enough to put a fiscal conservative into office at this point, then they deserve the consequences. It is not the time for an Idiological struggle of social issues and social justice, the issue is purely economics, and any Republican will be better than what we have. Once again....my opinion is that this election is about getting Obama out, not about the end all/be all solution to the Conservative Agenda...and that means holding our emotional and economic handicap fellow citizens of the Left by the hand to move past the Social Justice Agenda that is designed to bring the Capitalist System to its knees.


Jimi: I agree with you for the most part. But I'm not sure that just "better than Obama" is enough at this point.

The comments to this entry are closed.