Form a circle and fire away, Republicans.

Friday, January 4th, 2008 @ 12:33 pm | Clueless Conservatives

Sadly, No! has some fun observing the meltdown:

Remember those heady days after the 2004 presidential elections when liberals were chided for being coastal elites who were being punished by the electorate for mocking the heartland and its treasured traditional values? Remember when those folksy Christian Midwesterners were endlessly praised for their quiet resolve to support their godly President Bush and reject the sissy-assed negativism of the traitorous liberal establishment?

Pass the popcorn.

-mg

ps – Roger Ailes has some great snippets from some the elitists at The Corner.

pss – Dowdy Art Downs gets in on the act:

His twice-born, double-dipped hard-shell piety might appeal to the snake handlers and Biblical literalists but it could turn off a lot of South Park Republicans.

So it’s alright if the Jethros are all “gunned-up and ready to roll” for an Ivy League Republican like George W but once they nominate a candidate from their own ranks it’s time to rein them in.  Republicans, it’s time to accept your base.

15 Responses to “Form a circle and fire away, Republicans.”

  1. Thomas Tallis Says:

    Oh my God, the Steven Green freakout is so great I feel like I ought to Paypal him money for it. This is going to be AWESOME.

  2. Thomas Tallis Says:

    I love that these guys can’t tell the difference between the south and the midwest, too

    No Child Left Behind has retroactively robbed them of the ability to read maps

  3. sharon Says:

    At least we know you “rein in” someone.

  4. mike g Says:

    Thanks, sharon!

  5. Oscar Says:

    Awesome! Spelling troll!

  6. Thomas Tallis Says:

    wait did you originally have “reign”? I rather like the imperial cut of yr jib if so

  7. Dana Says:

    Well, before y’all get too carried away, I’d remind you that the Iowa Caucuses haven’t been a terribly good predictor of either the nominee of eventual presidential winner. Yeah, it’s a link to my site, but I can’t post charts in comments here.

    The last time there was a contested Iowa caucus in which the Democratic winner went on to win the presidency was 1980! (Bill Clinton won in 1996, but was not challenged for the Democratic nomination.)

  8. Thomas Tallis Says:

    That’s kinda neither here nor there, Dana – everybody knows that, though it’s quite funny to watch all y’all spinning about it these past couple of mornings. The point, rather, is how hilarious it is watching Republicans – who, when it’s convenient, like to rail about how the “elites” on either coast don’t have respect for “heartland values” – suddenly turning tail and embracing the very tropes they claim to deplore when Iowans vote (by rather convincing numbers!) for the Christian from Arkansas instead of the Mormon from Massachusetts. Suddenly half the Republican bloggers online sound like coastal snobs – “you dumb cornfed pig breeders! don’tcha know,” etc etc. Riotously funny! Meanwhile, the same supposedly ignorant Bible-thumpers nominate a dude name o’ Barack “Woe to Ye, Gomorrah & Saddam” Hussein Obama, which suggests that the image they’re trying to paint of Iowans is at variance from the truth.

  9. Dana Says:

    Mr Tallis: It’s in the numbers: The winner of the Iowa caucuses has won the nomination only about half the time, and some of those were years like 1984 and 1996 and 2004, when there was an unchallenged incumbent.

    Will Governor Huckabee win the Republican nomination? Perhaps, but my guess is that no, he won’t.

  10. Thomas Tallis Says:

    Dana I got love for you but that was the most egregious ducking of a point I’ve seen in some time

  11. Jesurgislac Says:

    This is the story of the Iowa caucuses:

    Percentage of total vote:

    24.5% Obama
    20.5% Edwards
    19.8% Clinton
    11.4% Huckabee

    I’m not betting the Republican Party won’t be able to rig the election anyway: it’s what they do, and they’ve got pretty good at it.

    But it’s pretty clear what the Iowa caucuses are saying to the rest of the country: that the serious choice lies between the three front runners for President, all Democrats, and only a minority are even interested in considering the Republican nutters.

  12. scott Says:

    If ever there was a case of figures lie and liars figure this is a prime example.
    A.) The Iowa caucus is two separate processes with two different sets of rules. When you are comparing apples and oranges you can’t throw then all in the same barrel and determine if something is statistically significant.
    B) Whereas the Republican Caucus rules allows one vote per voter, the democrats force those caucus goers whose candidate gets less than 15% support to leave the caucus or change their vote. (One person one vote, what a concept) So where the republican vote was divided over seven candidates the Democratic vote was artificially distributed to the top three.
    C.) Iowa voting law allows caucus goers to change their party affiliation the day of the caucus and there was a faction of Republicans that made the switch to vote against Hillary Clinton. Hence the larger than expected Obama support.

    The delusional lemmings on the left wing bandwagon get giddy over the sort of mindless drivel that these figures portend to display. But then when your predictions turn out to be wrong you always have “stole the election” as a fall back position.

  13. Dana Says:

    Scott wrote:

    Whereas the Republican Caucus rules allows one vote per voter, the democrats force those caucus goers whose candidate gets less than 15% support to leave the caucus or change their vote. (One person one vote, what a concept) So where the republican vote was divided over seven candidates the Democratic vote was artificially distributed to the top three.

    Some of our friends on the left were howling mad when ABC excluded Dennis Kucinich from the last debate in New Hampshire, but Mr Kucinich got zero votes in Iowa; if Scott’s characterization of the Democratic caucus process is correct, it shows just why Mr Kucinich got zero votes.

  14. Scott Says:

    Dana, Caucus 101

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses.101/

  15. Jesurgislac Says:

    Scott, those Iowa percentages are from total votes cast in both Republican and Democratic primaries.

    There are a hell of a lot more registered Democrats turning out to vote than there are registered Republicans.