Stupid is as stupid does: The GOP says Hillary is old

For those of you keeping track of what the Republican campaign strategy will be if Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 (via Jezebel):

GOP strategists are trying very hard to remind potential voters in the 2016 presidential election that Hillary Clinton (who hasn’t even decided whether to run yet) will be old when she hypothetically assumes office. Like, really old.

Older than Ronald Reagan when he assumed office? No, actually — a year younger than him. Older than John McCain (who was, to be fair, dogged with worries that he was too old to be president) when he ran in 2008? No, no — three years younger, as a matter of fact. Clinton will be 69 by the next presidential election, and though the GOP has put forward no shortage of Old White Candidates in past presidential elections (including Bob Dole the oldest ever at 73), this hasn’t stopped the likes of Republibros like Mitt Romney strategist/chief jester Stuart Stevens and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker from making jibes about Clinton’s age. Honestly, does anyone think this strategy won’t backfire horribly?

Uh … they don’t think it will backfire because they create their own reality. You know: Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide. Sarah Palin is a perfect candidate for vice president. Rick Santorum and Herman Cain should be in the White House. Newt Gingrich is the perfect spokesman for family values. Benghazi is the greatest American tragedy since 9/11.

So, why would a bunch of fat old white guys not think that focusing on Hillary’s age is a viable strategy?


The GOP and the randy elephant

Apparently, this is what Republicans consider outreach to women (from TPM):

A former intern for Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign was arrested Tuesday and charged in federal court with cyber stalking and internet extortion for allegedly obtaining nude photographs of young women and using them to blackmail his victims into sending more nude pictures.

Adam Savader, 21, who is also a former intern of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, contacted 15 victims between May 2012 and February 2013, according to affidavit by FBI Special Agent Michael T. Garland. Savader would allegedly contact his victims via text message from a Google Voice number, telling them he had nude pictures and threatening to send them to their parents or post them online unless they sent him more.

Many of the victims, some of which have not been identified, either went to the same college as Savader or grew up in the same area as Savader, who is from Great Neck, New York.

On Twitter, Savader describes himself as “Formerly @PRyan’s sole intern on @MittRomney’s campaign and a @newtgingrich campaign staffer.” His Twitter avatar is a picture of him with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

In exchanges with a woman identified in the affidavit as Victim 3, for example, Savader allegedly threatened to send nude pictures of her to the Republican National Committee as well as her parents, sorority, and internship. “Victim 3 estimated that on some days she would receive approximately eighty text messages,” the affidavit reads.

Several of the victims reported that their Gmail accounts had been compromised prior to receiving the threatening messages.

In another example, Victim 4 received the following text message from a Google Voice number on Oct. 30, 2012: “WAIT! Listen to me. If we don’t have a deal I will send the pictures to those people. Is that what u want? remember what’s at stake. do u want ur family and everyone in DC to see ur tits? Just agree to e-mail me a pic of u in a bra.”

No, wait. It gets better!


We already mentioned Adam Savader, the former intern to Newt and Mitt who hacked naked pictures of female college students and then tried to extort them to give him more nude pictures. Well, by Savader’s account he was frequently the guy in the Ellis the Elephant suit from the book written by Callista Gingrich!


(Is that your trunk, or are you just happy to see me?)


The Gingriches moralize on the Petraeus affair

Check this out around the 1:30 mark:

Words escape me. So I’ll reprint these words from Crooks and Liars:

The woman who married former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after cheating with him while he was married to his second wife says that former CIA Director David Petraeus‘s extramarital affair is “sad” and “painful” for his family.

“I think it’s personally very sad for he and his family,” Callista Gingrich told ABC’s Barbara Walters on Monday. “I think he did the right thing by resigning. But this is painful and they’ll have to work together through this as a family. And that will take some time.”

Are we destined to continue to hear from Newt forever?

Return of the politically living dead

Back in January, a lot of political experts said Newt Gingrich was dead to the world because he had screwed up so royally in his campaign and he had burned all of his bridges to medialand.

They virtually promised we would never have to hear him again.

But Driftglass, of the Professional Left Podcast, said this:

1. David Gregory will continue to pay the vig on whatever unholy debt he has incurred with Newt Gingrich by letting Newt tread the “Meet the Press” boards whenever he chooses and spout whatever happy-horseshit he wishes under Gregory’s iron-clad guarantee that Newt will NEVER be asked any tricky or embarrassing follow-up questions.

Just to reiterate, here’s the podcast for April 27 of this year. Go to around the 64 minute mark. Driftglass essentially says “Newt shall return,” because the Sunday talk shows are corrupt.

So, guess what the promo was on “Meet the Press” this weekend:

Gingrich and O’Malley discuss 2012 strategies and statistics

This confirms where I should be getting my political analysis from. It’s not from NBC.

Heads up, Kentucky! The GOP race is about to get surreal

Some quick GOP delegate math. Here’s where the Republican candidates for president stand in the delegate count:

. Delegates Needed to win % of remaining
. Mitt Romney 415 729 47.31%
. Rick Santorum 176 968 62.82%
. Newt Gingrich 105 1,039 67.42%
. Ron Paul 47 1,097 71.19%
. Remaining 1,541

So, obviously, this shows that Mitt Romney is in the best position to get enough delegates to avoid a brokered convention where some dark horse … (wait, this is the GOP) … some white knight who hasn’t been in the race will come in at the last minute and be the compromise candidate.

But it appears there aren’t enough “winner take all” primaries to ensure that Romney will have enough. That means he has to make a deal. It’s simple math. If he needs a few votes, he’ll have to get Gingrich or Santorum or Paul to turn their delegates over to him.

Daily Kos lays out the possibilities:

Santorum could offer his delegates up in exchange for being the veep nominee himself. Gingrich could … nevermind. He’ll hoard his pittance of delegates and declare himself emperor in his own mind.

I suspect Romney would never make a deal that would put Man on Dog or the Serial Adulterer in the number two spot on the ticket. Their negatives are outrageously high, and in a general election, they would only bring down the ticket, which already will be down because of Romney at the top.

But Kos gives us this gem:

If Ron Paul has enough delegates to push Romney over the line, he could trade them for VP nominee Rand Paul.

All I can say is, “Oh,no!”

Because this is a deal Romney would be willing to make. Rand Paul got into the Senate on the last election cycle. The voters of Kentucky were super pissed off that Obama was president, so they rejected the obviously better Democratic candidate (who I might add ran a terrible campaign) for the guy with the crazy pseudo-libertarian ideas. I still don’t get what Rand Paul is about. (Full disclosure: I did volunteer work for Jack Conway in that election and as a Kentucky resident voted against Rand Paul.)

And now, the realization has struck that Rand Paul is a legitimate contender to run for vice president of the United States. Because in this meritocracy we call the 21st century GOP, a person, no matter how dim or feckless, can succeed based on the generosity of his rich parents. (George Bush the Dumber; Mitt Romney the son of an auto executive/governor.) Need I say more?

Nancy Pelosi defends her friend, Newt Gingrich

This is political genius:

Never mind that this is kind of a bait and switch, because Stephen Colbert‘s PAC does have to report its donors. You can link to that here.

But for Nancy Pelosi to sit there and say “Even using his super PAC to attack my friend, Newt Gingrich” … well, that’s just worth the price of admission to watch the Bizarro World dead spin in their graves.

As they say in the European land of baguette lovers, “Bien fait, Madame.”

The Romdroid wins Florida

So, anything interesting happen in the Sunshine State yesterday?

Bolstered by superior resources and a relentlessly aggressive style, Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in the Florida primary Tuesday night, dealing a major setback to principal rival Newt Gingrich while putting himself back into a commanding position in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

So another major setback is dealt. Seems that’s happening every primary and caucus. Wonder what the next major setback will be? In the meantime, it looks like this is the frontrunner again:

An endorsement for the serial adulterer

A former California congressman named Randy “Duke” Cunningham is in a federal prison in Arizona for his involvement in a 2005 federal bribery scandal in which he pled guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion.

His positions in Congress, from 1991 to 2005, were what you’d expect from a Republican with rabies. From Wikipedia:

he had a very conservative voting record. He was often compared by liberal interest groups to former congressman Bob Dornan, with some justification; both are ardent conservatives, both are former military pilots, and both have become infamous for outbursts against perceived enemies. In 1992, Cunningham, along with Dornan and fellow San Diego Republican Duncan Hunter, challenged the patriotism of then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton before a near-empty House chamber, but still viewed by C-Span viewers.

In September 1996 Cunningham criticized President Clinton for appointing judges who were “soft on crime”. “We must get tough on drug dealers,” he said, adding that “those who peddle destruction on our children must pay dearly.” He favored stiff drug penalties and voted for the death penalty for major drug dealers.

Four months later, his son Todd was arrested for helping to transport 400 pounds of marijuana from Massachusetts to California. Todd Cunningham pleaded guilty to possession and conspiracy to sell marijuana. At his son’s sentencing hearing, Cunningham fought back tears as he begged the judge for leniency (Todd was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, in part because he tested positive for cocaine three times while on bail). Cunningham’s press secretary responded to accusations of double standards with: “The sentence Todd got had nothing to do with who Duke is. Duke has always been tough on drugs and remains tough on drugs.”

A typical corrupt hypocrite who should be forgotten while he spends his 100 months in jail out of public view.

But unfortunately, he’s in the news. Wait a minute, maybe “unfortunately” is the wrong word:

Cunningham tells Gingrich in an electronic message he says he sent to the candidate last month that his fellow prisoners, and their families, support Gingrich:

“Newt, a voice out of the past. Down but not out and still fighting. First I do not want anything from you but have been watching the debates. I have 80% of inmates that would vote for you. They might not be able to but their extended families will.” …

In the message, Cunningham says he wants to help Gingrich with prison and justice reform if Gingrich becomes president, something Cunningham has advocated in letters to the media over the past year.

I heard about this last night on the Professional Left Podcast, in which an excellent point was made. This is going to be a fascinating presidential election, because there’s no way anyone can claim to be undecided about making a choice between the two parties.

Jon Stewart is shrill

If you haven’t seen “The Daily Show” this week, check out the opening segments of Monday’s and Tuesday’s episodes.

Jon Stewart completely loses it Monday when Newt “the serial adulterer” Gingrich got a standing ovation for calling the media despicable in the South Carolina debate because CNN’s moderator opened with a question on Newt cheating on his multiple-sclerosis afflicted second wife, the woman with whom he cheated on his cancer stricken first wife.

Then the next day, he goes nuclear when Mitt “I’m unemployed just like you” Romney releases tax returns that show the former GOP frontrunner makes about $57,000 a day, without working, and has a tax rate less than a person who makes $57,000 a year. The news I picked up from that segment was that Romney’s Bain Capital lobbied heavily to get the lower tax rate for the rich through Congress.

Check the full episodes here and here.

It’s sad that a comedy show is doing a better job informing people than television news does.

Serial adulterer moves his lips. Know what that means?

Serial adulterer and GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich said this:

“A lot of people don’t think that he will debate, but I, as many of you know, I studied history and unlike the President I studied American History.” Gingrich said, before relating the story behind the Lincoln Douglas debates.

Now when Newt speaks, keep this in mind:

So where’s the lie? (This story, on a different topic, from the Washington Post.)

Gingrich studied history, but not America’s.

Gingrich earned a bachelor’s degree at Emory University and then a master’s degree at Tulane University, where he studied modern European history. After joining the faculty of West Georgia College, now the University of West Georgia, as an assistant professor of history, he earned a PhD from Tulane in 1971 with a thesis titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960,” by Newton Leroy Gingrich. …

Gingrich’s PhD, according to Garry Wills in this 1995 article in The New York Review of Books, “was partly critical of colonialism in the Belgian Congo, but was on the whole an apologia for it.”

Here’s one thing in his favor, though. At least he’s consistent.