Quite possibly. I'm sure, though, Handel is breathing a sigh of relief that it wasn't Eric Johnson in 2nd place. Deal has a whole host of ethical issues and was considered one of the most corrupt politicians in Congress and that's saying something.

Georgia peeps (Imran, JIMGA) but I remember reading on RedState that they hated Oxedine so much, that they would endorse Roy Barnes over him. Is he really that bad from your perspective (I guess that's more of a JIMGA perspective) or is this much ado about nothing?

Goring the Ox: The Georgia Republican Party is on Suicide Watch | RedState

RedState would likely never endorse Barnes over Oxendine (they'd more likely abstain if they were pushed), but Oxendine is amazingly crooked. Deal isn't all that much cleaner. I'm shocked they backed Handel... considering RedState appears to be more right wing and Handel is more moderate than the others running for Gov on the R side.

RE Dole

FTR Steve Forbes was waaaaay scarier looking than Dole.

To me, Ox is just ... used-car salesman slimy, or something. It isn't any specifics that turn me off so completely, rather it's this sense that he's always about what's good for John Oxendine.

Here's a snippet from my endorsements (tongue completely in cheek about what those are worth) from my blog this morning

I wouldn’t trust Oxendine to bring back the change if I gave him $2 to buy me a Coke, but I trust Johnson with money even less after he supported Sonny’s tax increase in ’03 (although I love his support of school vouchers) Handel’s willingness to fund liberal causes with both taxpayer & personal dollars eliminates her from being worthy of consideration (and my opinion of Palin is severely damaged after her endorsement of Handel), neither Chapman nor Putnam are a factor at all. That leaves one man standing for my vote, albeit just barely and not particularly tall. Come Tuesday I’ll ignore the red flags, hold my nose, and hope for the best, although the truth is I wish None of the Above were on the ballot. VOTING FOR: Nathan Deal

I'm not sure if there's much of a net gain for her on it really. Deal is probably better at politics than Johnson, even if he's easier to attack, so that's likely a wash. I also think Deal might have a bit larger mean streak when it comes to winning.

Eh, not entirely unheard of.

Earlier this year the guvner proposed a constitutional change that would have made four posts appointed rather than elected, it never made it to a vote IIRC.
But here's a snippet from when that story broke back in February.

Only four other states elect a labor commissioner and just eight others elect an agriculture commissioner. As for the other two offices, Georgia is among 13 that elect an insurance commissioner and 14 that vote on a state school superintendent.

Honestly, darned if I know.

But you need to recall that I've always said that I'm not personally sold on Palin, most of my arguments on her behalf here are of the "don't deny the influence that she wields" variety. Just don't ask me to explain that situation, I still haven't been able to do so to my own satisfaction much less anyone else's.

I will offer, however, a general notion I'm getting that isn't really formed enough for me to do it justice but I believe there's some sort of sentiment developing that if you've got the right foundation/moral compass/core values/whateveryouwannacallit, then the decisions you make will ultimately be right even if the specifics are fuzzy beforehand. Given the amount of utter screwups we've seen accompanied by specifics & experts, maybe that's as valid an opinion as any.

Column from Wednesday's AJC about Palin's possible motive for endorsing Handel. Be forewarned, it suggests that Palin isn't nearly the idiot many believe she is, that this is relatively sophisticated stuff, so it may not match preconceived images of her. I'm not sure I buy this explanation, I post it here strictly for your own consideration. My own leaning is that Palin simply wasn't paying much attention to various developments in the campaign beyond Handel showing a late surge.

The practical, calculating side of Sarah Palin | Political Insider

I think Palin herself is a moron. But I do believe she has people that tell her what to say and do that are intelligent. I truly believe she is just a puppet that spouts out what she is told. I guess you can make the case that most politicans are that way, but I think for her it's an extreme.

hehe...look kids, Big Ben! Parliament! :)

Not surprising at all. All he did was shout about abortions and gays, not much to see there. Oh, and the occasional family values commercial. Not that Handel ran on too much more, but when the state has a huge budget shortfall and a 10.5% unemployment rate, people don't care as much about the evil gays getting to walk down the street undragged.

Now that Handel can focus on one opponent, she should easily beat the dirty Nathan Deal. Maybe he and Sonny can go in to real estate together.

As the GOP becomes more of a rural party I think a big part of Palin's appeal is that she's one of "us". Certainly in the South, the center of the GOP these days, culturally identifying as one of "us" is crucial. No region votes so strongly on cultural identity as does the South.

The other part of Palin's appeal is that she pisses off liberals and for many in the GOP that's a strong foundation for a politician. A whole lot of GOP voters, including several in this thread, seem to be motivated primary by what pisses off liberals must be good. Palin pisses off liberals, so she must be a good candidate.

With a 76% approval among the GOP and a primary schedule that favors rural voters, I could easily see her as the 2012 GOP nominee.

The problem is, Jon, that I'm not sure she really has this "right foundation / moral compass / core values / etc..." that you think she does. Her actions, especially as a mayor and a governor, but also on a personal level, have often run counter to the values she espouses, especially since she was nominated for VP. I would urge serious caution there, Jon.

For instance, I'm astonished that fiscal conservatives, or libertarian tea partiers can stomach supporting her. As a mayor she raised Wasila's sales tax by 25% to pay for a $14.7 million hockey rink (this in a town with a yearly budget of $20 million at the time), and also mortgaged the town's finances while she was at it to make the rink work. As governor she gladly took federal handouts and happily supported a number of real boondoggle construction projects. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Let's not forget she couldn't hack more than 2 years in the nation's easiest governor's job (small population + federal subsidies + money from oil = no real hard fiscal decisions).

Obviously I dislike Sarah Palin, but I would think it should be at least somewhat arguable that she's essentially an opportunistic cipher. Yes, I'm sure she believes genuinely in a few things, such as gun ownership, abortion being illegal and God, but for almost any other position she espouses there's some sort of clear example of her acting in contravention of her stated stance on an issue.

I know you're looking for someone who will use whatever tactics are necessary to game the electorate and then govern firmly from a clear set of principles, Jon, but I really, really don't think Sarah Palin is that person.

Well, considering that prior to Palin's endorsement of Handel all the polls had Oxendine hovering around 40%, it is kind of surprising, don't you think?

And to be quite honest, as Governor of Alaska prior to the VP nomination she seemed far more pragmatic than ideological. She was all for extra taxes on oil companies for one. It's when she became the conservative hope that she veered sharply to the right on a number of issues, at times contradicting her previous record.

She's just a bad actress, I think. She han't been doing this for very long.

I still think that her story, from city counsel to popular Alaska governor is an impressive, uniquely American one. She didn't get there by being chosen by the Republican party, in fact, she had to leapfrog a lot of the good ole boy GOP establishment along the way. I admire her a lot for that path she took. It just should have ended there.

Ironic, since Oxendine is well-known for having a different woman (or two) on his arm when he goes out during NAIC meetings.

I think David Frum is spot on regarding Sarah Palin's endorsements:

Deciphering Palin’s Ayotte Endorsement | FrumForum

Palin takes this "Mama Grizzly" thing quite seriously, and she has now endorsed several female candidates over male candidates whose views would seem to have been a closer match to her own--in California, she went for the female candidate over the Tea-Party-backed male candidate. In her own way, Palin is ardently "feminist," in the restricted sense that considerations of gender have a tendency to trump all other considerations.

Go back & read what I repeated earlier, I'm not sold on her. Haven't been, still not. My comment was to my still-forming understanding of at least one aspect of her appeal overall, not specifically any appeal she has to me personally.

OK, fair enough. I guess I read it a little differently, that she had enough appeal to you to warrant you investigating her further as a standard bearer for yourself. Hence my reaction: I really couldn't see how someone with your professed views, and professed fidelity to your views, could really be all that happy with Palin.

My post still holds for all those folks who do see her as the Second Coming, though. :D

I'll be fair here, I can't say with absolute certainty that she won't overcome me at some point with her whatever-it-is, but I can say that she hasn't yet.

She does have that whole pisses-off-the-liberals-mightily thing going for her and at least that much is a good sign ;)

I think rather than being Palin-specific (as far as my own personal preferences are concerned), that incomplete embryo of a notion that I'm not able to explain to my own satisfaction yet, might eventually apply to some candidate for me at some point but that's no guarantee that she'll be the one I apply it to.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned Sarah Palin is a shining example of all that's wrong with America. Although she doesn't piss me off as much as Beck, Hannity, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Is there a liberal analogue to Palin? Someone who makes conservatives white-hot with unfocused rage? I need to know, so I can support that person more.

I think you can pick from a pretty wide variety, there's not exactly a shortage of them. The vast majority of them inspire that reaction.

The only ones that make me that kind of mad are Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, and the celebrity wing of the Democratic party. Keith Olberman is getting there. None of these have ever held public office, but Palin is really just a media figure at this point anyway.

Edit: And I guess the Kennedy's when they're portrayed as angelic icons and the greatest people in history. But they're all dead. When they're portrayed realistically, I admire them. And it's not really their fault how they're portrayed. So I guess I can't really include them

He's sitting in the White House

I was more wondering about conservatives in general. Given that you possess a white-hot rage concerning perhaps 50% of the population, you're a bit of an outlier. :p


Jon Stewart? Really? White-hot unfocused rage?

OK, good point.

I also want to throw in Nancy Pelosi as well.

Both Olbercunt and Palin make me shut down with anger when they talk.

Yes, but perhaps a majority of that is entertainment and personal-based rather than political-based. He just makes my skin crawl. He's a hack. I hate that he's famous, beloved, and seriously referred to as the new "most trusted man in America." He had this brilliant marketing plan and I hate that it succeeded, and I hate what that says about America. All that.

Plus he's no Craig Kilborn.

What does it say about America? That they like a comedy show focused on political and news events? The horror!

For starters, it's a sign that they have no taste, no sense of humor. Beyond that, finding that worthless p.o.s. funny gives considerable pause about how far our collective judgment has fallen in terms of what is truly deserving of ridicule.

Or did you mean other than that?

He makes fun of politicians that happen to be Republicans sometimes. That makes Molson mad.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Keith Olberman, and that old lady on the McLauglin group.

On the conservative side: Palin for sure, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck.

EDIT: Palin and Beck are the worst because they have taken a movement that I believe in (government spends too much money and is very inefficient) and act like they are the chosen leaders of it and that God and endless war are somehow a big part of the solution.

Can't stand Olberman, Beck and Limbaugh. However, 2 of the 3 listed I would classify as entertainers as opposed to news/media. 1 of them I would classify as trying too hard, way too hard to be snarky with his self imposed "being offended".

All 3 suck. All 3 count on their little sheeple to not fact check or question them and most of their sheeple won't.

However, Jon Stewart and Colbert are and always have been comedy/entertainment and have never denied it or tried to claim to be something else. They don't claim to be the voice of america or the voice of reason or the voice of change. They are who we thought they are: comedians. Like them or not, if you can't see that, then you should have to turn all of your TVs in and get a full refund and sign a contract stating you will never own a TV again or watch TV again for the rest of your life.



Lunch time!!!

You have a serious crush on him. You get all emotional when I say I'm not a fan. It's kind of cute. If you weren't such an ass.

He's more comedian than say, Chris Matthews, and Michael Moore, but certainly less than David Letterman or the Onion (the latter being Rainmaker's favorite comparison). Letterman and the late night shows are somewhat closer, because those shows do, while having plently of non-policial comedy, on occasion, have serious interviews with policial figures, and express a specific point of view. Will Rodgers would be a decent comparison also.

I was just stating an opinion in response to a question. Criticizing Stewart is the only one from the list that causes people here massive butt-hurt for some reason.

Liking a comedy show that focuses on political and news events is one thing. Getting your political and news events from a comedy show, however, is really fucking stupid.

I have a good sense of humor. I like Tony Danza.

No doubt. You know who would agree with that? Jon Stewart.

On a serious note, are Republicans sick of Michael Steele yet?

The Stewart lovers immediately point out here how this isn't his fault. And while that's true, you can't blame him for America's morons, he does love his MSNBC interviews, faceoffs with Jim Cramer, positive media portrayals of his election coverage, ect. Staying just "comedic" enough allows him WAY more leeway, and gives him a bigger soap box than would otherwise be entiteld to. You can find dozens of quotes from Stuart disclaiming his political relevance. (He went on MSNBC to argue that he wasn't relevant, which is kind of funny). How many such statements/disclaimers do Letterman, the Onion, and SNL feel the need to make about how they're "just comedy"? None. (And last I checked, those shows do make fun of Republicans on occasion).

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was created by the guys who ran The Onion. The whole concept of the show was to turn The Onion into a format for TV.

No one gets their political news from the show. Their age demographic gets their news from the internet.

Jon Stewart?


:banana:

That might gave been their intent, but that certainly isn't what the show is now.


LOL, sure.

What has changed? The show seems to be the same as it was 10 years ago. Probably a bit less funny as they lost a lot of their best talent (Carell, Colbert, Helms, Black).

Really? Young people aren't getting their news from the internet? Someone tunes in at 10pm and finds out Michael Jackson died? Or that a black man was elected President? I hardly ever watch the news anymore as I'm finding it out instantaneously online. I didn't realize I was the only one.

I remember David Letterman getting torched for jokes about Sarah Palin. I remember SNL being cast as holding a political bias for making fun of her too. For groups you are claiming to be "just comedy", they sure get a lot of play in political circles.

The problem with partisians is that if someone makes a joke about them, maybe points out their hypocrisy, they are automatically labeled as being for the other side and holding some political bias. You have to do that because it's much easier to just say someone is a hack and the enemy, than it is to say they're calling us on our bullshit.

All those people are comedians. They use political news as their inspiration. Calling them political hacks is just a sad way of trying to label someone on the other team because you can't take a joke about your own party.