To me, it’s a foregone conclusion that Romney will be the 2012 nominee. Short of the media finding his other seven wives, including a 12 year-old child-bride-to-be… I can’t really think of anything that will cause Romney to lose the nomination. He’s been consistently popular, he is way ahead in campaign funding, and he hasn’t completely embarrassed himself in the last few months, like every other front-runner.
It’s still so early, though. I say this, not because I think Romney might lose, but because at any moment, anyone else in the field might say or do something that redefines how little we think of them. There are so many debates left to go, and there are so many contemptible people in the race. Yet, how I rank people probably won’t change.
I don’t think I focus on the same things as other pundits, mostly because these are not the things I measure in order to gauge whether I support a candidate or not, but they are what I find interesting to compare in a political race.
Let’s meet the field, as I would introduce them: the order in which they were front runners.
First, you have Mitt “the Clit” Romney. I call him “the Clit” because everyone knows you don’t start with the clit, you end with it.
Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachman was a favorite in the early days of the campaign. Then she opened her mouth.
Next up is Rick… um… shoot, I forgot his last name. Oops. I’m pretty sure he’s running on the platform that retirees with Alzheimer’s will vote for him, thinking he’s Bush.
Herman Cain is the candidate with experience. Most Republican front-runners only said things that got them in trouble when in the lead, while Herman Cain has been doing so for years.
Newt Gingrich is supposedly the new not-Romney to catch the fickle eye of Republican voters. Ultimately, it may be mutual unfaithfulness that brought voters to Gingrich’s camp.
Ron Paul is kind of like the senile grandpa who gets seated at the kids table for Thanksgiving. Sure, the young people love him, but none of the adults are listening.
Rick Santorum… is that guy seriously running? All I can think of when I hear his name is, “… frothy…”
Jon Huntsman: if you wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney, how about his clone? Come on, he speaks Mandarin!
There are others, most notably Gary Johnson, but if the majority aren’t going to bother to take them seriously, I’m not going to bother learning about them to make jokes no one will get.
So, the rest of this post will consist of me ranking these candidates in arbitrarily ridiculous criteria of my own choosing.
“True Believer” rating: from most to least, how much I think each candidate believes the bullshit coming out of their mouth
Michele Bachman
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Herman Cain
Jon Huntsman
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
I just really believe Michele Bachman is that stupid. Rick Perry would rank higher, except he showed me how little he knows about government agencies he supposedly hates… and if you can’t even remember who you hate, then you don’t hate them that much (at least until your advisors remind you backstage). I believe politicians like Newt and Mitt would say their own mothers were genocidal maniacs if it helped their chances of getting elected (don’t bother asking me how that could help… have you seen what Republican crowds cheer for these days?).
“Gladiator” rating: from highest to lowest, the likelihood that they would win an unarmed battle royale between all candidates
Mitt Romney
Herman Cain
Michele Bachman
Jon Huntsman
Rick Perry
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Mitt has the height advantage on everyone but Santorum, who I’m fairly sure is just a tall chickenshit. Now, I know Paul supporters are going to be like, “What the hell?” but guys, he’s 76 years old. Mitt Romney is the age at which old guys are at their toughest without going brittle (64). The only thing Ron Paul is going to fight is osteoporosis. I wouldn’t be surprised if Michele Bachman shocked everyone and stood victorious in the end, clutching Romney’s still beating heart high above her head in victory.
“Cheers” rating: from most to least, who I would want to have a beer with
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Herman Cain
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Michele Bachman
Mitt Romney
Technically, Romney and Huntsman are exempt, since they don’t drink. But then again, neither do I. Wait a minute…
“Dinner Guest” rating: from most to least, who I would want to have over for dinner
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Newt Gingrich
Herman Cain
Mitt Romney
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Michele Bachman
This is similar, but I moved some people around. To understand the logic, I moved people down if I didn’t want to actually eat a meal with them, like I imagine Newt would eat off my plate, but I don’t think he would sip from my beer in a bar. Perry moved down because I’m fairly sure he would try to start the meal with a prayer. Mitt moved up because I think it would be interesting to watch him at a meal to see if he eats out of both sides of his mouth.
“Switch” rating: from most to least, who I would like to switch lives with
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Jon Huntsman
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul
Michele Bachman
I think I would rather die than be anyone on this list, to be honest. Even the rich and powerful ones are old as hell (Romney is 64, Perry is 60, Gingrich is 68, Ron Paul is basically a walking corpse). Michele Bachman was almost my top choice, but then I realized: if I wanted to be married to a gay guy, there are states where I could do that now and I’d still only be 28. I went with Rick Santorum mostly because I would get a kick out of doing an erotic photo shoot with Dan Savage.
“Animal” rating: from coolest to lamest, which animal best represents each candidate
Jon Huntsman – panda
Mitt Romney – silverback gorilla
Rick Santorum – polar bear
Rick Perry – a slightly less-alpha silverback gorilla
Michelle Bachman – praying mantis
Herman Cain – black sheep
Ron Paul – vulture
Newt Gingrich – toad
I think most of these are self-explanatory, although I wanted to point out that I thought of Newt as a toad, not a newt. Yeah, both are slimy, but only the toad hops from marriage to marriage like they were lily pads.
“Reaper” rating: from first to last, the chronological order of most likely to die (based on actual flow of time, not the age they will live to)
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul
Herman Cain
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Michele Bachman
Bachman is a little older than some of the candidates, but women tend to live longer. Paul may be the oldest, but Newt looks so unhealthy, I bet he deep-fries his fingernails before he bites them. I was actually shocked to learn this, but Herman Cain is older than Newt Gingrich. I still bet Cain outlives Gingrich, however, even if he gets free pizza for life (I mean... it is a vegetable now, after all).
“Name” rating: from best to worst, how I feel about just their names
Jon Huntsman
Herman Cain
Michele Bachman
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
The last three were the hardest. I think Mitt and Newt are the dumbest nicknames I ever heard. “Yeah, lemme introduce you to my pals, Glove and Lizard.” Or at least, that’s what I hear. Rick Santorum didn’t have a horrible name… but that changed and cannot be unchanged, no matter how many angry letters he sends to Google.
“Hollywood” rating: from best to worst, whose life would make a good movie
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachman
Herman Cain
Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
To be honest, I don’t think I would want to sit through any of these, even if they were directed by David Fincher.
“Sell-out” rating: from most to least, who is likely to end up doing commercials after the campaigns are over
Herman Cain
Michele Bachman
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney
I think Cain is a no-brainer, as his whole presidential run is little more than a publicity stunt for his public speaking career (well, that and the impetus for his wife to finally leave him). I can imagine Bachman doing some sort of Christian charity spot, or maybe even a disaster relief ad. Newt’s debt is what leads me to believe he’ll be hawking hearing aids or diabetes medication after this is all over. And Ron Paul is a natural for pitching gold, since the guy has been doing it pro-bono for years.
Well, that’s probably more than you ever wanted to know regarding what I thought of the Republican candidates.
Nice job on the lists. I chuckled a couple of times.
ReplyDeleteMy only thought on this is that I whole-heartedly agree that Ron Paul would be the most interesting dinner guest.
ReplyDeleteI consider him a complete lying hypocrite, not sincere, but he is interesting.
When he says we should "let charities handle the problem of poverty," he intentionally offers up a solution he well knows will not work.
He is an interesting little tyke, though.
I think Paul is a true believer. I know he's wrong on many issues, including his stance on welfare/charity, but I don't think he's pushing an agenda he doesn't believe. I think he just honestly believes people would willfully share more than they currently are under duress. He just thinks more of people than we do (or that reality warrants).
ReplyDeleteI see the current system, and my last thought is, "We should cut funding." If anything, we need to double or triple our efforts in achieving economic social justice, because what we're doing isn't even close to enough. But libertarians and Republicans across the country look at the same thing and say otherwise. I don't think they're all lying; some are, but most of them are just dumb... which is why we need to increase funding in education, too.
Oh, damnit... newts aren't lizards, they're amphibians. My biology professor would be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteHe does not think that if you give people 10% tax cuts 100% of those people will then give back an additional 10% to charity.
ReplyDeleteYou hear people saying Americans should be able to "keep their own money." You do not hear them saying "people should be able to decide what charity to donate their own money to."
Ron Paul does not care about the poor whatsoever. He only suggests alternative solutions he knows will not work because it is the politically-acceptable thing to do.
By the way, I think it is very wrong of you to denounce the liars as stupid. Just because they are have a different opinion from yours, it does not make them stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou think Ron Paul only wants to cut 10% from taxes? Pffft.
ReplyDeleteHow Ron Paul imagines it would work is twofold. One, people will be given money and they will, in theory, donate more, and that money will magically be used better because it's being used by private charities, not the government, so clearly they are better and more efficient.
Then, because taxes are lower, he probably imagines things in the economy get magically better, like lower unemployment (thus alleviating some of the problem without even using charity).
What actually happens is the rich get richer, and they buy more politicians.
Oh, and they are stupid, because a stupid person is one who stubbornly insists on being wrong. There is no question on this matter: they are wrong, they aren't ignorant (they are aware of the existence of other views and the real-life data that backs it up), and they insist that they are right. He's also stupid when it comes to evolution. In fact, this is arguably one of the most stupid groups of Republican candidates I can ever remember seeing, with the exception of Michele Bachman; I'm fairly sure she's ignorant, bless her heart.
I'm not sure if I'm glad or disappointed that I didn't make your list.
ReplyDeleteHR, I saw you as being like Gary Johnson. I think you're perfectly qualified, but I think that makes you unelectable.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more about what animal you'd associate me with, how bad of a true believer you think I am, how I would rank in the gladiator arena, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's a given that I'd be a great person to have a beer with and my name tops everyone's...
It's toughto do those without know what you look like physically. If I was going personality alone, I would associate you with a wolf. Maybe a wombat, if you look particularly awkward.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, you're pretty young (mid-late thirties, if memory serves me). I think you would do well in the gladiator portion, unless you have some particular physical shortcoming I'm unaware of. Personally, I think the only one of them I could take in a fight is Rick Santorum.
I bet you also be at the bottom the Reaper rating list (meaning I bet you'd die last), unless you smoke or are particularly obese, in which case I'd bump you up about 2-3 per major health problem.
As for true believer, I dunno... sometimes I think you're actually Pat Robertson trolling me, but I bet you're probably high up on the list as a true believer.
And I would have a dinner with you, as long as I don't have to eat rocky mountain oysters.
Oh, stop the hate on Ron Paul, Myste! He's the only major candidate for president in either party that would end the war on drugs, end the Fed (and bailouts for "too big to fail" banks and corporations), and end the US Empire's disastrous (and costly) wars.
ReplyDeleteNSKJ,
ReplyDeleteWere I hating Mr. Paul for any of these things, you would have a very good point.
Ron Paul is not perfect, but his anti-statist and anti-corporatist stance is very appealing, which is why I lean in his favor. Obviously the federal government is dysfunctional. I think the US is just too diversified and too large to be effectively governed. By trimming the fat at the federal level and returning power to the states, we could improve things in this country. State leaders are more accountable to their constituents; so it makes sense to keep the centers of power local, and the tax dollars local. So what if he wants to cut education, health and welfare spending at the federal level? You can always do it at the state level if that is what you want. Same thing with military spending and social security; do it at the state level. We don't need a huge army. The wars of the 21st century will be maritime wars in the Pacific. Keep the Navy and the Air Force, but dismantle the standing army that we have now and let each state have its own National Guard. I mean, reducing federal power in favor of state power is better than outright secession, is it not?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul wants to give the power back to YOUR home state... that's not a bad thing.
I guess I am not a huge advocate of State's rights. Only people have rights and the Constitution should uphold them, regardless of the state in which those people reside.
ReplyDeleteState's are not alive. They have no rights.
Agreed John, only individuals have rights, but my point is I would rather keep the centers of power closer to home where the elected officials are more accountable and responsive to the citizens than have the seat of power be in some distant city and where the power is shared with representatives of other states that couldn't care less about the people of my state. It's not about state's rights; it's about having more direct control over what happens in your own backyard. Who do you go to when you have to deal with day-to-day work issues? Your regional manager, or your CEO back at the head office?
ReplyDeleteI hear you. However, the regional manager's mission is to enforce the policy of the company, the CEO's vision. In that case, it is not divisive, but delegatory. No state should be able to deny the rights of women to vote or to have slaves, for example. Our state laws in other things, however, like capital punishment vary by state. Things are wrong or they are not. The State’s have no inherent rights. I understand why government is divided as it is. I simply don’t agree with the policy.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what federalism means.
ReplyDeleteHeathen,
ReplyDeleteI will address two comments: John, you seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what federalism means.
And your other comment:
I'm sitting here dumbfounded that you imagine the state governors are all running around like regional managers carrying out the bidding of their CEO Obama.
First this one:
John, you seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what federalism means.
First, my understanding of Federalism comes from both historical education and recent education. In the past couple of months, I have nearly completed two books that deal heavily with the concept, one written by Sandra Day O’Connor and the other written by Stephen Breyer. My understanding is identical to theirs. If you have some conservative FOX contortion of the term, please share it with me and I will consider whether I should amend my idea of its meaning based on the conservative idea.
And now this one:
I'm sitting here dumbfounded that you imagine the state governors are all running around like regional managers carrying out the bidding of their CEO Obama.
That baffles me also, since my example explained precisely that this is not the case, and that the two relationships are different, not similar.
I said I was not a huge advocate of State’s Rights. His lordship compared “State’s Rights” to a corporation. I rebutted that comparison with this:
However, the regional manager's mission is to enforce the policy of the company, the CEO's vision. In that case, it is not divisive, but delegatory.
It means, I consider the concept of State’s Rights to be a divisive concept and I consider the concept of the CEO vs. Regional manager to be a delegatory relationship.
In other words, I said the exact opposite of what you suggested.
Perhaps you did not read the thread. I don’t see how you could have misinterpreted that sober.
Oh, I read the thread, and I just re-read it again prepared to say, oops, my bad. Your statement
ReplyDelete"the regional manager's mission is to enforce the policy of the company, the CEO's vision. In that case, it is not divisive, but delegatory."
is what I saw, and after re-reading it, it sounds like you are the one making the comparison. I will accept your second comment as a rejection of the way I interpreted it, and I humbly apologize.
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteIt was in response to this:
but my point is I would rather keep the centers of power closer to home where the elected officials are more accountable and responsive to the citizens than have the seat of power be in some distant city and where the power is shared with representatives of other states that couldn't care less about the people of my state. It's not about state's rights; it's about having more direct control over what happens in your own backyard. Who do you go to when you have to deal with day-to-day work issues? Your regional manager, or your CEO back at the head office?
My point, which I thought was clear, was that the CEO / regional manager relationship is delegatory, unlike the federal government vs. States, which I consider divisive.
You "humble" apology is accepted.
Look, maybe my use of the regional manager vs CEO analogy was confusing. Let me use a different analogy then. If you have a feral cat problem on your property, do you call your town's animal control department, or do you call the Pentagon for air support?
ReplyDeleteAll I am trying to say is the people closer to the problem are the best people to handle it. So I believe that states are better suited to govern people than a federal government is. Yes, this opens up the door for some states to abuse their people without federal oversight, but the beauty of it is you can always move to a different state if you hate yours so much. Like, I would never ever want to live in New Jersey, so I don't.
His Lordship,
ReplyDeleteYour point is well-made.
I am actually suggesting that I would prefer the non divisive corporate model, but it does not exist. I consider what is "right" in most cases to not be a state issue. Capital Punishment is a perfect example. It is right or it is wrong, but not in America. In America, whether it is right depends on the American ground on which we are standing.
I have a problem with that.