Thursday, January 5, 2012

Some Updates

I posted about 2011 being a bad year here.  Dave Barry creates a big picture here.  My favorite paragraph:
I’m not saying that the entire year was ruined by sleaze. It was also ruined by other bad things. This was a year in which journalism was pretty much completely replaced by tweeting. It was a year in which a significant earthquake struck Washington, yet failed to destroy a single federal agency. It was a year in which the nation was subjected to a seemingly endless barrage of highly publicized pronouncements from Charlie Sheen, a man who, where you have a central nervous system, has a Magic 8-Ball. This was a year in which the cast members of “Jersey Shore” went to Italy and then — in an inexcusable lapse of border security — were allowed to return.
I pointed to Conor Friedersorf's analysis of Santorum's chances hereGeorge Will seemingly believes that Santorum has a rose colored 3/4 full glass.
White voters without college education — economically anxious and culturally conservative — were called “Reagan Democrats” when they were considered only seasonal Republicans because of Ronald Reagan. Today they are called the Republican base. . . .
Santorum exemplifies a conservative aspiration born about the time he was born in 1958. Frank Meyer, a founding editor of William F. Buckley’s National Review in 1955, postulated the possibility, and necessity, of “fusionism,” a union of social conservatives and those of a more libertarian, free-market bent.
If the Republicans’ binary choice has arrived, and if new technologies of communication and fundraising are repealing some traditional impediments to fluidity in political competition, Santorum can hope to win the nomination. Yes, in 2006, a ghastly year for Republicans (who lost 30 seats and control of the House, and six Senate seats), Santorum lost by 17 points in his bid for a third term. But, then, Richard Nixon was defeated for governor of California six years before being elected president, carrying California.
Even if Santorum is not nominated, he might galvanize a constituency that makes him a vice presidential choice. For Obama, getting to 270 electoral votes without Pennsylvania’s 20 is problematic. But so, just now, are Republican prospects of getting to 270 with their narrowing choice of candidates.
David Brooks also seems enamored with the former Pennsylvania senator.
The Republican Party is the party of the white working class. This group — whites with high school degrees and maybe some college — is still the largest block in the electorate. They overwhelmingly favor Republicans.
direct not just provide voice overs.
It’s a diverse group, obviously, but its members generally share certain beliefs and experiences. The economy has been moving away from them. The ethnic makeup of the country is shifting away from them. They sense that the nation has gone astray: marriage is in crisis; the work ethic is eroding; living standards are in danger; the elites have failed; the news media sends out messages that make it harder to raise decent kids. They face greater challenges, and they’re on their own.
The Republicans harvest their votes but have done a poor job responding to their needs. The leading lights of the party tend to be former College Republicans who have a more individualistic and even Randian worldview than most members of the working class. Most Republican presidential candidates, from George H.W. Bush to John McCain to Mitt Romney, emerge from an entirely different set of experiences. . . .
I wrote about Gingrich as a sandwich here;  apparently, he is not content with being a ham, he also wants to produce and
Newt Gingrich is out with his first “contrast” television ad airing in both New Hampshire and South Carolina Thursday, marking a new phase of his presidential campaign.

The TV ad, which calls Mitt Romney’s economic plan “timid,” is a switch from the positive-only ads the campaign was running in Iowa -- all of those ads featured Gingrich doing the narration.  .. . .

Keeping the ads “factually accurate,” at least by his standards, is very important to Gingrich, who was heavily attacked by Romney, as well as many other candidates, the weeks leading up to the first-in-the-nation caucus.

“As long as it’s factually accurate, it can’t be seen as a negative campaign to describe accurately somebody’s record,” Gingrich said the day of the Iowa caucus.

The campaign will not confirm the size of this TV buy, but does say it is "significant" and will continue to run similar “contrast” ads in the early nominating states.

No comments: