Comments on: No Valentines For Romney http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:31:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Christopher Hayes http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5579 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:20:21 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5579 If McCain could just get himself looking younger, maybe with a face-lift (Catherine O'Hara's in "For Your Consideration" would be a good start). Maybe some footage of him running on a treadmill - Bob Dole owns one he could use. Maybe a cameo in a Black Eyed Peas video? Problem with the "heir apparent" principle though - most folks think of the "heir" in any situation as the person who is not about to die. If McCain could just get himself looking younger, maybe with a face-lift (Catherine O’Hara’s in “For Your Consideration” would be a good start). Maybe some footage of him running on a treadmill - Bob Dole owns one he could use. Maybe a cameo in a Black Eyed Peas video?

Problem with the “heir apparent” principle though - most folks think of the “heir” in any situation as the person who is not about to die.

]]> by: Grumpy Old Man http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5571 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:30:44 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5571 The GOP tends to go with the heir apparent rather than some dark horse a la Carter of Clinton. This principle would seem to favor McCain, who in spite of his maverick reputation has tried to insinuate himself as the establishment candidate. No "Boy Orator of the Platte" for the elephants, alas. This thing is going to pall even for politcal junkies. I have <a href="http://globaloctopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/10-things-to-do-during-upcoming.html" rel="nofollow">some suggestions</a> for alternate activities (bonsai, knitting, lycanthropy). One could also study <a href="http://www.georgian-language.com/" rel="nofollow">Georgian</a> on line. A nice complement to Armenian, although possibly more difficult. The GOP tends to go with the heir apparent rather than some dark horse a la Carter of Clinton. This principle would seem to favor McCain, who in spite of his maverick reputation has tried to insinuate himself as the establishment candidate. No “Boy Orator of the Platte” for the elephants, alas.

This thing is going to pall even for politcal junkies. I have some suggestions for alternate activities (bonsai, knitting, lycanthropy). One could also study Georgian on line. A nice complement to Armenian, although possibly more difficult.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5569 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:01:22 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5569 This is a good point. I have summarily dismissed Thompson, laughed at Huckabee, belittled Brownback, ridiculed all of the major players and explained why they can't win; Joe Biden is politically dead for obvious reasons, and I acknowledge that, much to my regret and dissatisfaction, Ron Paul is probably unlikely to win the whole shooting match. This would indicate that I have probably missed something, or else I have reached some supreme level of cynicism in which I inevitably perceive all candidates as hopelessly flawed. Have I managed to reject all the candidates? Not quite. I think that you will find, if you go over my many posts on '08 (I should probably create a page just for the election), that I have kept the door more or less open for Richardson, Vilsack, Tancredo and Hunter. Come to think of it, I have never dedicated any time to talking about Clark, Dodd, Gilmore or Gravel, so technically I haven't ruled them out. I am hereby ruling those four out. Put this way, it would seem that I have chosen the long shots and no-hopers as the real field of potential nominees. I suppose I have, but I think that this will be the right call for at least one of the two parties. The Republicans will probably, in the end, ignore all their better instincts and nominate somebody like McCain or Brownback (or both together!), but I still just don't see how that happens when it comes down to the actual, living voters. How will enough people around the country actually pull the lever for John McCain to make him the nominee? I don't see it. I know--someone has to win, and all the traditional advantages rest with the big name top tier candidates. But this election is not going to be quite like other elections. Think of '72 or '76 where the eventual nominees on the one side without an incumbent were basically entirely unforeseen. I am unusually confident (especially since the first vote won't be cast for eleven months or so) that the Democrats will pick one of their governors. Right now, if I had to pick a name, I might pick Richardson, but I am not going to make that call for a while yet. This is a good point. I have summarily dismissed Thompson, laughed at Huckabee, belittled Brownback, ridiculed all of the major players and explained why they can’t win; Joe Biden is politically dead for obvious reasons, and I acknowledge that, much to my regret and dissatisfaction, Ron Paul is probably unlikely to win the whole shooting match. This would indicate that I have probably missed something, or else I have reached some supreme level of cynicism in which I inevitably perceive all candidates as hopelessly flawed.

Have I managed to reject all the candidates? Not quite. I think that you will find, if you go over my many posts on ‘08 (I should probably create a page just for the election), that I have kept the door more or less open for Richardson, Vilsack, Tancredo and Hunter. Come to think of it, I have never dedicated any time to talking about Clark, Dodd, Gilmore or Gravel, so technically I haven’t ruled them out. I am hereby ruling those four out.

Put this way, it would seem that I have chosen the long shots and no-hopers as the real field of potential nominees. I suppose I have, but I think that this will be the right call for at least one of the two parties. The Republicans will probably, in the end, ignore all their better instincts and nominate somebody like McCain or Brownback (or both together!), but I still just don’t see how that happens when it comes down to the actual, living voters. How will enough people around the country actually pull the lever for John McCain to make him the nominee? I don’t see it. I know–someone has to win, and all the traditional advantages rest with the big name top tier candidates. But this election is not going to be quite like other elections. Think of ‘72 or ‘76 where the eventual nominees on the one side without an incumbent were basically entirely unforeseen.

I am unusually confident (especially since the first vote won’t be cast for eleven months or so) that the Democrats will pick one of their governors. Right now, if I had to pick a name, I might pick Richardson, but I am not going to make that call for a while yet.

]]> by: Pithlord http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5568 Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:19:30 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/02/14/no-valentines-for-romney/#comment-5568 Daniel, taken individually your posts on the 2008 presidential race all seem convincing, at least to this outsider. But taken together, they seem to imply that no one will win the nomination of either major party. So there must be an error somewhere. Daniel, taken individually your posts on the 2008 presidential race all seem convincing, at least to this outsider. But taken together, they seem to imply that no one will win the nomination of either major party. So there must be an error somewhere.

]]>