consultants are sandburs

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Republican hopefuls, those with presidential runs in their anticipation, gain attention.

You want a fundie red litmus test. Here is that litmus test.

Eric Ferguson's recent item at MPP was linked to in the post UPDATE, below; and again, it is online here. It speaks for itself. Ferguson links to online reports of polling results; and unless I missed a link in his item, here is parallel content aside from Ferguson's links.

And to show Ferguson's reporting and commentary is not in any way some mere left-wing off-point local critique where criticism might not be due; read on.

First, some might say Fiorina is a target because she, as a woman, can be the attack-dog beat-up-on-Hillary GOP'er that would be able to do dirt, and not be accused of sexism. That's helpful to the rest of the pack, all male.

So, Fiorina might gain more attention than otherwise if attention were solely based on her likelihood of getting anywhere with ostensibly seeking the GOP ticket top spot. Check the litmus test link to see how, in turn, the GOP money spenders want Carly, for now, featured. Just standing in line taking her turn, in getting her fundie ticket punching taken care of along with all the others, but my she does get focused coverage.

In turn, a Bloomberg writer has twice written and published negative analyses about Fiorina, e.g., here with a great lead image; and here.

Next, most parallel to Ferguson's analysis, Bloomberg authorship again, a ChiTrib op-ed, "Republicans need to shut the door on this candidate clown car," this link.

Excerpting -

With Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee tripping over one another’s announcements this week, we now have 15 declared presidential candidates, 10 who are exploring a run and five who could jump in, including the Harold Stassen of vanity candidates, Donald Trump.

This threatens a repeat of what Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus vowed he would never let happen again: presidential nomination debates that devolve into a circus.

[...] Still traumatized by the 2012 “dog-and-pony show,” which he called an “embarrassment and ridiculous,” Priebus has decreed that this time the circus can have only nine rings, I mean debates, compared with about two dozen in the 2012 cycle.

[...] Limiting the number of debates may or may not help. What Priebus really needs to do is limit the number of debaters. He publicly atoned for not doing it last time, but so far he hasn't come up with a way to prevent another melee. He’ll have to act fast to find a formula before the first debate in August in Ohio, sponsored by Fox.

Priebus saw the damage last time as the eventual winner, Mitt Romney, repeatedly found himself on stage with people who weren’t going to win anything but frequent-flier miles [...]

If Priebus doesn’t come up with something, the eventual winner this time will be sharing a stage with Carson comparing the U.S. under President Barack Obama to Nazi Germany or the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo. But Carson is the only black candidate, and that matters to a party that recognizes it has a likability deficit with minorities.

Similarly, eliminating Fiorina would reignite the War on Women meme. Fiorina isn’t as out there as Carson, but she has no hope of making a dent, given her credentials as a losing U.S. Senate candidate, who had previously been ousted as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard for a questionable merger and huge layoffs, a record that is likely to come up a lot.

[...] Let's say Priebus sets the bar at 3 percent, he would lose a few of the harmless former governors that voters couldn’t pick out of a lineup — George Pataki, Bob Ehrlich, Jim Gilmore — but he also would eliminate potentially serious candidates, Governors John Kasich (who won re-election in crucial Ohio with almost 64 percent of the vote), Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal.

As bad as the polling threshold would be, it is better than the alternative, a money threshold. That would only cement the Republicans’ image as the party of the wealthy, with a “pay-to-play” filter that leaves those who aren’t in the pocket of the Koch brothers with their noses pressed against the camera lens.

What the party elders need is a smoke-filled room. [...]

In the old days J. Edgar Hoover had files which could be used to winnow out contestants not favored in the smoke filled rooms, and even without that, when the bosses said "No," it meant "No, and don't even think about bucking us or you will learn the meaning of hurt."

And on the side of greater reason than that mess pack, and well the other side of Hillary, there is Sanders; making the Dem side of things something a little less of a coronation.


Wikipedia, here
If only Bernie could get traction. He'd be good for the nation in the White House, but expect a general election choice parallel to 1992 - a Clinton and a Bush with the likely victor a Clinton.

Jeez, those are sharp looking suits. And track down the original larger image, and look carefully at the ties. Like gangstas, but somewhat more discretely subdued, they each wear their colors.

This link. And lo and behold, that fundie front site having what actual agenda, saying Walker is soft on embryo love. What is the agenda, please; Bush anointment? Marginalize everyone else, that seems to be the game plan, so who is this Frank Cannon actually? Frank Cannon, President of American Principles in Action? Who pays the bills for that APA brand? You buy it, you own it. Ditto, Fox, where's Rupert's money bet?

Hey, a thought experiment - Google "Frank Cannon." All the first hits point to a fiction. Figure that one.

Oops, paranoia. Sorry about that ...

Democracy in action, media never at fault, and help me, what's the remainder of the mantra? You hear it from Rush, from Fox, it has to be true?

Why anyone would favor Scott Walker is a puzzle to me, but for those favoring him, please leave a comment about the puzzle I give you, per this update, and updating of this earlier post. It surely seems gaming the fundies and their gullibility is at play, but I might be wrongly reading tea leaves. (It might not be the first time a Bush gamed the fundies.)

So who bought the flag and podium, who rented the hall?
Another puzzle piece, you have to Google "frank cannon american principles project" to get the sleaze bucket. Individual and organization go hand in glove, so, who apart from that American Principles front is Frank Cannon? Learned and deliberative conservatives, help me understand. Answer the question.

A humble view from the left: You tube, here, and William Kristol is a gimme, and can you say: neocon? If so, can you say: Bush? AIPAC? Do you think Scott Walker just might be softer on Iran than Jeb? Where many might say "more sensible" instead of "softer?"

It sure looks as if an effort is afoot to paint Walker as somebody besides --- however it unfolds - how Walker, himself, sees Walker. Has Walker yet kissed the David Koch ring, having an audience with Koch, and would that even matter to Frank Cannon?

Does this look like grassroot to you, or astroturf?

_______________FURTHER UPDATE_______________
Astroturf is astroturf, regardless of which side of the fence it is installed.

Same question: Does this look like grassroot to you, or astroturf?

Hat tip to Andy, for posting a link to the latter operatives. It stinks, regardless of who's agenda is being propagandized by careerist political retreads delving into mud slinging. It cheapens the process.

I see Soros, the one NORML guy (the former "Director of Communications" no less) in there, and all, but my sight has age behind it and might not have the correct acuity to judge ...

No comments: