Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Mary Kissel’s best line

34 comments

The Republicans, after all, nominated the only man who could lose that election.

Written by Samuel J

March 7th, 2013 at 9:23 pm

Posted in International,SJ

«
»

34 Responses to 'Mary Kissel’s best line'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Mary Kissel’s best line'.

  1. That they did. Of the last four anyway – there were others earlier in the piece.

    Driftforge

    7 Mar 13 at 9:27 pm

  2. She also described the rest of the field – the finalists anyway – as a gallery of clowns, (or some such expression with the word ‘clown’ in it); lamented Mitch Daniels’ early departure from the running, and predicted a stronger more serious field in 2016.

    dd

    7 Mar 13 at 9:33 pm

  3. Yes – her argument is that the GOP select individuals who have done their time or are the next cab off the rank. So we’ve seen Dole, McCain and Romney. She argues that there is no such person in 2016, so the GOP may well select a good candidate.

    Sinclair Davidson

    7 Mar 13 at 9:38 pm

  4. As an aside, you’re obviously picking a fight with Steve. :)

    Sinclair Davidson

    7 Mar 13 at 9:38 pm

  5. I think there was a sense from early on that the rising stars were leaving their pitch for 2016.

    Driftforge

    7 Mar 13 at 9:43 pm

  6. The others were worse

    JIm Rose

    7 Mar 13 at 9:49 pm

  7. Remember the anyone but mitt movement

    JIm Rose

    7 Mar 13 at 9:51 pm

  8. I’d like to see Jeb run 2016.

    Sinclair Davidson

    7 Mar 13 at 9:53 pm

  9. Sinc – I hope not (picking a fight with Steve) as we both wanted Obama to lose that election. I did write a few blogs, though, saying I thought Romney was a bad choice and would lose the election. If the GOP was serious about winning the last election they should have chosen a better candidate. I think Mary is right that, at last, they will have to move away from that last cab off the rank in 2016. I wonder if Hillary will be the Democratic candidate then. Imagine the agony of reading the following succession of presidents: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. Can’t a nation of 315 million choose better presidential candidates? Where are today’s Jeffersons?

    Samuel J

    7 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm

  10. No not Jeb! Then we would have Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, (Clinton/Bush)!

    Samuel J

    7 Mar 13 at 10:01 pm

  11. And look at that Michelle Obama. She looks like wanting to run at some stage too.

    Samuel J

    7 Mar 13 at 10:03 pm

  12. Samuel

    Under the current atmosphere there really can’t be another Jefferson.

    The presidency prior to the first Roosevelt was never meant to have such prominence. It was always an advise and consent role working behind the scenes. Teddy changed all that for the worst.

    Perhaps it was before Teddy with Lincoln taking a more prominent role.

    Jc

    7 Mar 13 at 10:03 pm

  13. Hilary? Hmmmm. I don’t know that she can win. Too technocratic I suspect. She’ll be 69 or 70 at the time of the next election. On the other hand the Dems might fall into the next cab off the rank mentality.

    Sinclair Davidson

    7 Mar 13 at 10:04 pm

  14. I’d like to see Rubio and Ryan duke it out in 2016. I was disappointed in Romney at the end. Obama has been so bad as president that he should have been knocked off but the Romney campaign lost steam after the first debate.

    tbh

    7 Mar 13 at 10:05 pm

  15. Hillary is weighing up her options as she always does. I honestly don’t think she will run as it’s really grueling work.

    Jc

    7 Mar 13 at 10:06 pm

  16. The presidency prior to the first Roosevelt was never meant to have such prominence. It was always an advise and consent role working behind the scenes. Teddy changed all that for the worst.

    I think you’re right JC. I watched an interesting series of docos when in the states recently about the history of the presidency and the men who occupied the position. Teddy was the first properly activist president the US had (Lincoln and the civil war notwithstanding) and there were a couple of others in the same mould right after him.

    tbh

    7 Mar 13 at 10:07 pm

  17. Samuel – heh. There another George Bush too. :)

    Sinclair Davidson

    7 Mar 13 at 10:07 pm

  18. I preferred her assessment of the universe’s best treasurer:

    “Wayne Swan? I always enjoy his fact-free arguments.”

    Deadman

    7 Mar 13 at 10:24 pm

  19. I’d like to see Jeb run 2016.

    The Republicans, after all, nominated the only man who could lose that election.

    They have form.

    Driftforge

    7 Mar 13 at 10:30 pm

  20. I think, if we can get rid of our current arseholes, we should join with NZ, Canada and whomever and make sure that we have strong ties within America.

    As far as I am concerned the Government of the United States of America are an unreliable ‘friend’.

    NoFixedAddress

    7 Mar 13 at 10:41 pm

  21. And that should be pushed at them in the strongest terms we have left

    NoFixedAddress

    7 Mar 13 at 10:42 pm

  22. But wait.

    Fisk said Mitt couldn’t lose!

    Only a ‘social conservative’ could lose!

    C.L.

    7 Mar 13 at 11:00 pm

  23. In any normal year, Romney would have walked in. There is a peculiar hysteria gripping the US at the moment. Obama had the almost fellatory support of most of the media, without whom winning is impossible, and they were not about to let anyone depose their precious Messiah. He could just about fuck newborn kittens to death on the White House lawn and they would still stand behind him.

    perturbed

    7 Mar 13 at 11:10 pm

  24. [...] to drop a personal note to Mary Kissel about the American election but as Sinclair warned Samuel J, his post has drawn me into this once again. So while I am here let me bring into this my post mortem on the [...]

    The president who never was but should have been | Law of Markets

    7 Mar 13 at 11:22 pm

  25. And look at that Michelle Obama. She looks like wanting to run at some stage too.

    And why not? If an American voter did not vote for her, they would be, demonstrably and by definition, a racist, a misogynist, a chauvinist and unforgivably prejudiced against grasping arriviste harridans – who are passably hot from certain camera angles.

    James in Melbourne

    7 Mar 13 at 11:27 pm

  26. “And look at that Michelle Obama. She looks like wanting to run at some stage too.”

    Rancorous Michelle.

    Early in the piece I saw this written about the newest Quin of America: “Michelle Obama often shows off her perfectly toned arms by going sleeveless. Many have followed her lead; some, the author would argue, not wisely.”

    With half of their voting adults being so stupid as to race out and buy what she wears because she wears it, and casting a vote because they want to have beautifully toned arms too, she’d be a shoe in.

    Mick Gold Coast QLD

    7 Mar 13 at 11:28 pm

  27. “… and unforgivably prejudiced against grasping arriviste harridans – who are passably hot from certain camera angles”

    Is this the angle that took your eye James in Melbourne?

    http://irateirishman.com/blog/irateirishman.com/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/princess-letizia-spain-french-first-lady-carla-bruni-michelle-obama.jpg

    Mick Gold Coast QLD

    7 Mar 13 at 11:42 pm

  28. who are passably hot from certain camera angles.

    The ones taken from their point of view, perhaps?

    Nothing, NOTHING, is unsexier* than Michelle Obama, especially when she scowls. That’s a look that breaks mirrors. IMO that scowl says “If the tinhats are right and my husband becomes dictator, I’m gonna make Winnie Mandela at her worst look like Honey Boo Boo.”

    perturbed

    8 Mar 13 at 1:21 am

  29. @perturbed

    BHO… “you reckon I’m bad….hhahahaahaha
    wait till you see what Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama can do….

    got you whitey!”

    NoFixedAddress

    8 Mar 13 at 3:13 am

  30. I maintained all the way thru the painful primaries that Romnney was Obummer’s pick.

    I don’t resile from that.

    With the selection of Ryan I Romney might just fight an ideological campaign.

    He didn’t.

    When occasionally he did venture ideologically with some elegance his stocks always rallied.

    I think he would have been a fine President for the times tho because the debt and deficit dictated that necessarily he would have be a fiscal conservative – pro-growth and smaller government.

    Santorum was always the better ideological campaigner.

    But Kissel is right in saying the field was woeful.

    Even so the GOP lost what should have been an unlosable election.

    The consequences of that loss could see the US fast become a second-tier power.

    Here’s praying that will not be the case.

    JamesK

    8 Mar 13 at 10:02 am

  31. With the selection of Ryan I thought Romney

    JamesK

    8 Mar 13 at 10:03 am

  32. The GOP seem pretty confused as a party at the moment. They need a real leader to get a hold of the joint and shake it up.

    Andrew Jackson was moving the presidency to political prominance.

    Pedro

    8 Mar 13 at 10:40 am

  33. So what are the chances the Magic Negress runs in ’16?

    Think about it…

    Winston Smith

    8 Mar 13 at 12:20 pm

  34. The Cannibal Queen in ’16 !

    Eyrie

    8 Mar 13 at 1:11 pm

Leave a Reply