"In the wake of the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, and a dozen or more episodes of real rebellion on the streets, in the legislatures of cities and towns, and in state and federal courthouses, this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event – the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race."
"Kent said to me yesterday that ‘everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn’t I.’ Then he told me he would stay with our campaign. The Ron Paul campaign has to answer for its actions."
Michele Bachmann • Discussing the surprise departure of her Iowa campaign chairman, Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, who defected to the Ron Paul camp. This is not good news for Bachmann, especially since the move comes less than a week before the Iowa caucus. Ever since Bachmann won the straw poll in Iowa back in August, it’s been diminishing returns, to the point where some are calling for her to drop out. They’re also calling for Rick Santorum to drop out, but that’s probably not going to happen because Santorum is suddenly on an upswing. For Bachmann, however, she might be reaching her endgame. source (via • follow)
I find this whole thing really interesting. If Bachmann really doesn’t want Romney to get the nomination, the smart thing would be for her to drop out and support Santorum. Otherwise they’re going to split the religious conservative vote and both end up not placing very highly. It will be Paul and Romney, which will guarantee a Romney victory. I think it’s hilarious we live in a world where it could come down to Santorum v. Romney or Paul v. Romney. The guy whose name we can google or the guy who has a history of racism that would make Strom Thurmond blush vs the guy Republicans can’t get behind because he’s a Mormon.
This sums up a lot of what I think about Obama supporters right now.
"… I was at the gym when the [Palin] news broke, hence the late post. And, of course, the news was juxtaposed by the untimely death of Steve Jobs. Leonard Cohen once said of America that it was ‘the cradle of the best and the worst’. Today, we lost one of the very best in American history, a reticent genius and entrepreneur, an inspiration for countless of us who has changed the very fabric of our lives. And we also saw the end of the road for one of the very worst: a nasty, callow, delusional, vicious know-nothing, brewed in resentment, and whose accomplishments could fit on a postage stamp. It’s a fitting comparison: achievement versus resentment, creativity versus narcissism, hope versus fear. I know which one will get the bigger headlines tomorrow. And there is some comfort in knowing it will pain her."
— Andrew Sullivan
, pointing out something we noticed, too. While our words aren’t nearly as harsh as those of Sullivan (who has had a longstanding axe to grind with Palin), it’s fascinating how quickly Palin disappeared from the news cycle after Jobs’ death was announced. In their own ways, these are two people who mastered the media better than anyone else in the past five years — Palin did it with a years-long tease for something which never came, while Jobs teased us constantly, and usually delivered. Both were calculated in how they worked, but only one proved to be worth the hype. To give you an idea of how quickly this happened: When we had our last-minute hail-mary moment
at the paper, we removed a giant photo of Palin and replaced it with a giant photo of Jobs on our front page. (via callumswood, zainyk)