Understand it isn't a "victim card". The Republicans have a real fetish for losers and many losers have a real fetish for the GOP.
What is Bush? Sure, he's an elitist, but among the elite he's considered a loser.
The GOP is now a reactionary -- not conservative -- party. They react against immigrants. They react against Islam. They react against gays.
And they try to tie it all together by claiming they're reacting against some giant, horrible, evil librul conspiracy to do something to the average loser.
The GOP's main pitch is: "Somewhere out there right now, a person who doesn't look like you, who doesn't talk like you, who doesn't worship like you, who doesn't screw like you, who doesn't vote like you is out there having success while you toil and accomplish nothing. This November, please vote against that person. Because there really is no reason to vote for us. I'm John McCain, and I approve your continued efforts to blame others for your life's failures."
It's not a victim card. They really, really deep down think they're losers and blame others for their condition.
How voting Republicans improves that condition, I don't know. I guess they feel better after dumping on blacks, gays, Muslims, socialists and women -- oh, wait, they luv Hillary, my bad.
Did anyone else take away the sense that Mitt and Huck were quietly laying down the cases for themselves for 2012?
Huckabee for sure is starting his 2012 pitch. Consider his speech, where he lays out more of his own story than McCain's story. Last I checked, that's a big no-no if you whole-heartedly are backing the candidate. I don't recall Clinton getting up there and talking about her time in Arkansas, right?
Mitt sure seems of the same mind, too.
And you have to wonder, given the precedent from 1976, how many GOPers can resist assigning a parallel between themselves and Reagan?
"I really don't believe, as far as Obama goes, that his having black skin is an electability problem."
Harold Ford, who was a shitty candidate if there ever was one, put to bed a great deal of this notion, IMHO. In a strongly southern state he made a solid run at a tough seat against a vicious opponent.
I can't imagine Obama being a worse candidate than Ford. Likewise, the national environment is far nicer to a black president than the environment in TN was toward a black Senator.
Look, I'm all for women rising in government. I'm just not keen on "engineering" that rise.
The fact is, women do have a choice. They can vote for other women, and more often than not they don't. They can run for office, and more often than not they don't.
There is a clear difference between the genders and how they treat their place in the larger political picture. It isn't just some post-modernist scam where we've tricked women into working against their own good. Something bigger gives.
Women largely don't even make the effort to aspire to power. Even when it is clearly to their benefit AND within their grasp they still don't.
You said, "Living in a Democracy gives us a chance to engineer our society"
Living in a democracy all but ensures we will never be able to engineer our society!
And that's a good thing. Our system is dynamic, adapts to change and survives better than any system so far conceived by any human society. When ideas suck, we throw them overboard, often with the people that originated them.
Men are better positioned to function in a dynamic society. Even as we throw more of them into jails. Even as our educational system clearly fails males.
Men tend to end up over-represented at the top and the bottom of our system.
I think it is worth considering the possibility that there is a genetic basis for the sort of movement leadership you're talking about.
There is a theory that suggest that the role males hold in leadership stems from the variations caused by the XY pair versus the XX pair in our chromosomes.
Because women need both Xs to manifest many genetic traits, women tend to display lower variance.
On the upside for women, this means lower instances of undesirable traits among women, including a number of diseases and developmental disorders.
On the upside for men, it also means that men can manifest highly desirable traits very easily, because one good Y or X chromosome is all they need to display many traits.
It's worth pondering. Do men lead movements more often simply because their chromosome make-up increases the variance in male traits enough to ensure that the most successful individuals (those with the highest variance from the average) are likely to be males?
I hate it when my dark horse bets fall to shit. Especially after his gem about the evangelicals owing Bill Clinton an apology. Man... you could have almost at least not hated your Republican friends for voting for a guy like that.
So, we have an exposed faux maverick, a cross dresser and a Mormon?
Let's pray they don't walk into a bar, or hijinks will ensue.
BTW, Guiliani would be an albatross. Has no one yet figured out that the South tends to give Southerners a break? Guiliani is a NYC liberal! Totalitarian or not, Southerners are still going to vote less for the man.
Maybe this is why the chattering class is trying to test market Thompson.
The GOP candidates are simply awful representations of the party itself.