The generic "Politics" for this category of posting leaves me wondering, how many atheists and non-theists, freethinkers and agnostics belonging to A|N consider themselves a wonk. (I used "Wonkette" facetiously and with reference to the dot com of a political blogger.) If by now you still do not know what a wonk is, I recommend going back to your own planet and consulting its library. Now, I only ask because I am actually curious about a matter. Can anyone tell me how many vice-presidential candidates, whose ticket lost an election, actually went on to become president themselves when they ran at the top of the ticket?
I am only curious because Paul Ryan appeared on a morning political talk show and prove anew that we are about to see The Second Coming of the Purple Better One. As I recall, that was the late William S. Burroughs' term for all politicians, for whom he had nothing but vitriolic disdain. He likened them to a certain ape that has a, you know, purple..... Since they are all alike in their motive for running in the first place (to get rich, automatically eschewing altruism, casting it aside at the altar of Gold), altruism and profit being mutually exclusive.
Somehow, I simply cannot see Ryan in the White House. No woman in her right mind would vote for him. His sexist, Catholic ideas about women -- he supports state brainwashing of abortion patients in Christian dogmatic practices that should horrify everyone but the Stepford bitches who actually think a woman's place is to be her husband's "help mate." Then, there is his threat to Social Security and Medicare. Finally, there is his perennially smiling, perennially smug face. When I die and go to hell Ryan will be there, pitchfork and tail.
The "Purple Better One" ... you mean Barney the Dinosaur?
The GOP presidential ticket in the election just past consisted of a man who barely wanted to be president and a man who had no business being either vice-president OR president. I suppose that, if the GOP can manage to retreat from its far-right excursions, that Paul Ryan MIGHT be a touch more acceptable to voters, but there would remain the matter of his previous speech and positions from the 2012 election. Offhand, I'd say the media won't let him or the voters forget that, and disavowals in favor of a new, bluer Paul Ryan are not likely to wash too well.
You suppose Romney could use some help over at Marriott?
"You suppose Romney could use some help over at Marriott?" Yes, he constantly complains that handing out towels in the men's room is only fit for a black person or Hispanic. He also does not like making $7.50 an hour and wants a higher minimum wage. And he grumbles about the tips being miniscule now that eight years of George W. Bush have almost destroyed the economy, put millions out of work, and brought us to the brink of bankruptcy and/or a Second Great Depression. He confides: "If that rich ignoramus from Midland, Texas, hadn't fucked everything up during his two terms, the voters wouldn't blame me. I coulda been somebody. I coulda been a contendah." You might say Mittens is embarrassed at ending up in the Marriott men's room, but that's about the best he could get since every potential employer said "overqualified."
If there is a hell, I seriously doubt Ryan will be in it. I think Satan has better taste, with regard to his social calendar, than to extend an invitation to him.
Pat is correct - Ryan would just be terrible and like you said James "No woman in her right mind would vote for him. His sexist, Catholic ideas about women -- he supports state brainwashing of abortion patients in Christian dogmatic practices that should horrify everyone but the Stepford bitches who actually think a woman's place is to be her husband's 'help mate.'"
I would never vote for that.
Thanks for quoting the most awkward sentence. Funny, I had you lusting to be a Stepford Woman. ;-)
The people that go to hell are the ones that actually want to go. Humorously posited by George B. Shaw in the 3rd act of Man and Superman - Don Juan in Hell.
Besides, we get to meet Voltaire, Hemingway, Mark Twain, Einstein, among many, many others. All you get up there are the Jerry Falwells.
James - yes - exactly
Jerry fallwell? Good grief. Eternity with that gasbag? Are we sure we don't have heaven and hell confused?
That's the point, isn't it? One person's heaven is another person's hell. So why was Jerry Falwell telling us all how to run our lives? When I studied religion I read a bit about the Yezidis of Iraq. The few of them remaining (those who survived Saddam's pogroms) still worship Satan as the "ruler of the world." It was interesting to see an antinomian gnostic sect in the Muslim world. In their belief that the planet is in the clutches of the Devil, the Yezidis were like the Ophites, whose consecration of sacramental bread began with having snakes crawl over the loaves prior to ritual consumption by congregants. The implication would have to be that both the Qu'ran and the Bible are the collected lies of the Devil.
I'm no expert but the following is my current political hallucination...
Unfortunately, the other party must put up a candidate to oppose Ryan. Having put all their eggs in one basket, democrats will be most likely be putting up Biden for POTUS. That is, barring some unforseen political disaster like 9/11 2.0 or death. I personally like Biden but let's face it, he has the reputation for being an amusing buffoon. Unless the dem's gain some degree of seriousness about deficit reduction, an increasingly number of the electorate will see someone, indeed anyone of the fiscal conservative persuasion as a serious candidate. I think it's too early to anoint Ryan as the GOP candidate but I would not be surprised to see him out there stamping out any early competition. That's what I would do since Romney seems to be out permanently. Unless dem's start building support for the next election candidate early, they'll let Ryan back in the race before they even know the starting gates are open. I don't know if it's within the dem candidate power to do so but they stand the best chance if they can somehow manage to splinter the opposition.
On the GOP side, the candidate who can bind all anti-dem forces together will have a good chance of success. It's going to take someone with some serious political instincts to do so and he'll need titanium bands to keep the monkeys in the cage. I would think the GOP would have a better chance putting up a more moderate candidate but for some reason they don't seem to get it. The longer they're in the wilderness, the more wild they get. If the GOP has it's way this next election will not be about social issues. Every stump speech will be about economics, real or imagined. Even if the economy continues to improve, they'll attempt to shift the debate towards long term economic theory, which many people will buy into because they're scared. That could change depending upon just how much things improve.
I don't gamble much so I don't know what the term is for doubling what you've already doubled down own. Maybe cubing down?