A Merry Super-Tuesday Eve

Tomorrow, voters across the country will get in line to cast their ballots in this year's Republican primary election.  Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia will continue the trends of apathy and record-low voter turn-out as the candidates vie for the four hundred thirty-odd delegates up for grabs.  The biggest prizes... Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Gingrich hopes a big win in his home state can put his campaign back on the map, Romney hopes he can finally separate himself from the pack, and Santorum hopes he can stop crying and hating his mother every time he fornicates at his wife.

From CNN:

Republicans Feud Over Drawn-Out Nominating Calendar

Republican candidates and their governing establishment have grown weary of the selection process as they watch their potential candidates race to see who can bleed to death the fastest from self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the foot.

One of the biggest changes was the rule stating that any state voting in March had to award its delegates proportionally instead of in a winner-take-all method.   A large complaint from 2008 the RNC tried to address was the fact that early state winner-take-all primaries forced John McCain onto the ticket.  He came out of those initial contests with such a lead that the rest of the elections seemed insignificant.  Unable to excite the Republican base, McCain felt it necessary to chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate, which in turn failed to excite anyone who might have been remotely leaning toward McCain over Obama.  Obama then won the presidency and rampant communism ensued.

Republicans didn't want a few early states sticking their ticket with someone who didn't know how to serve up the red meat.

The RNC looked back to that 2008 election and saw the democrats get energized by the drawn-out slugfest between Obama and Hillary Clinton.  They saw those two candidates become battle-hardened, able to address or deflect their harshest critics through months of training.  The McCain-Palin ticket got Tina Fey, but they didn't take that sparring partner seriously enough.

Republicans didn't want a few early states making the outcome a forgone conclusion so that their candidate would go all soft before the presidential election.

Beyond that, the RNC wanted to make sure better-funded candidates didn't dump massive amounts of cash into early elections to wrap up the nomination.  With a more prolonged process, the RNC hoped money would be less of an issue.

"We wanted to give every candidate a fair shot to make their case to the Republican base, and that's the bottom line," said former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who pressed for the changes. "We wanted to make it competitive. The members were tired of the nomination fight being over in six weeks."

I believe Michael Steele's sentiment here is praise-worthy.  The whole point of an election is to allow the most people a say in the process, money be damned.  Kudos to the intention, and maybe that's actually playing out in 2012, but outspoken critics of the changes are getting frustrated.

"It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now," said former Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen, a Romney supporter who opposed the new nominating rules when he served on the RNC. "It's been a long drawn-out affair, and that's not a positive thing." 

"I saw right away that we were going to have a lot of proportional states, and that was going to drag things out," Pullen said. "I didn't feel that made much sense given that we have a sitting Democratic president."

From Governor Christie:

"I think these RNC rules that turned to proportional awarding of delegates, I mean, this was the dumbest idea anybody ever had," Christie, another Romney supporter, recently told Fox News. "We voted against it at the RNC. The reason we did is you're running against an incumbent president who will not have a primary. So your idea? Make ours longer so we can beat each other up longer."

I'm not saying Governor Christie and Chairman Pullen don't have a point trying to unseat an incumbent, but proponents of the rules changes would argue everything is going according to plan.

The Republican nominee was not decided early on by a handful of contests. States as diverse as Georgia, Ohio and Alaska are about to weigh in on Super Tuesday. And candidates such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with ragtag campaign operations are still in the game, albeit with the help of their super PACs.

I think the end of that last quote gets more to the heart of the problem than rules changes.  In fact, one could say that certain states changing up their primary dates in violation of RNC rules should have helped Mitt Romeny seal the deal relatively early.  Florida forfeited half its delegates in order to move their election date up, a state that Romney was predicted to win big.  That pushed Iowa and New Hampshire up to the beginning of 2012 instead of holding elections in February as they were supposed to so that the primary fistfight stayed short... shorter... shorter-ish.  If Romney had been able to appeal to anyone outside the Old/White demographic (what's up Florida and Arizona?), this could be over already.

But Romney couldn't, which meant a longer, drawn-out process which tends to bankrupt the smaller candidacies.  But not this year.  The "Corporations Are People, My Friend" ruling of the Supreme Court that opened up the flood-gate of billionaire donations to individual Super PACs have done more to draw this primary out than anything else.  Gingrich essentially has one donor, Sheldon Adelson, as shown by OpenSecrets.org:

Winning Our Future Contributors

Mr. Adelson and his wife each gave Newt Gingrich $5 million with rumors of another $5-$10 million on the way.  Romney's SuperPAC, while not propped up by any one individual, demonstrates the power of a handful of donors each writing six or seven figure checks:

Restore Our Future Contributors

Granted, if Romney didn't have those backers, he could probably self-fund his run, sort of as he did in 2008 when he dumped $42 million of his own cash into his candidacy.  Rick Santorum's main backer has already demonstrated his awkward camera presence with the famous "Bayer aspirin between the knees" stance on birth control.

Red, White, and Blue Fund Contributors

While Foster Fries may be Santorum's largest overall contributor, don't forget the $1 million donation Santorum managed to snag from the Dore Energy Corporation.

In any other election, Romney's organizational strength would have outlasted Gingrich and Santorum by now, forcing them out of the race due to a lack of funds.  But because of the Supreme Court, the RNC fear of money determining the primary election is more true than ever.  All Adelson needs to do to prolong this process and deny Santorum a possible nod is write a check every now and then to Newt Gingrich's SuperPAC.  He's publicly said he's alright with either Newt or Romney getting the nomination, so his overweighted actions draw things out to the detriment of Rick Santorum.

As long as a few wealthy social conservatives decide that Gays, Guns, and God need to be the issue of the day, they can keep a fringe candidate like Santorum going by making sure he can almost go toe-to-toe advertising in crucial swing states like Michigan.  Regardless, I'm not sure that the election calendar itself is to blame here.  Then again, maybe Citizens United and the SuperPACs have democratized the elections a bit.  Before, you had to be rich to run.  Now you just have to be friends with someone who is.

I think what all of this amounts to is a process that doesn't allow the current mediocre-at-best Republican candidates the luxury of hiding behind a fast nomination process.  None of these candidates do any real service to the Republican party and I don't blame voters for feeling apathetic.  The potential candidates Republican voters want to see don't have any interest trying to beat an incumbent president with the economic and political numbers all starting to turn his way.  So they are left with the dregs that have floated to the top.  A shorter primary wouldn't have changed that, it just would have given voters less time to dwell on their list of second-best options.

Congress v. United States Takes on the Ultimate Question

Forty-two.

Beyond that, though, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on something I saw over on Fox Nation this morning.  But first, a little background.  Andrew Breitbart, conservative activist and commentator, recently died very suddenly at the age of 43 while taking a late night walk.  He collapsed on the street, paramedics tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate him.

You probably know the name Andrew Breitbart, but you most certainly know some of his actions.  A summary from an article over at The Age:

Andrew Breitbart Dead At 43

Rep. Anthony Weiner's admitting that the leaked money shots were actually his own junk, which later forced him to resign from office?  Andrew Breitbart.  Hidden videos (albeit heavily edited) showing ACORN employees advocating illegal activities that eventually stripped ACORN of federal grants?  Andrew Breitbart.  Uncovering a piece of video (and then heavily editing it again) of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, appearing racist toward whites, forcing her to resign?  Andrew Breitbart.  Sure the unedited video eventually surfaced, revealing the clip in its entirety was actually a call to end racism made by talking about this life-changing story, but the damage was already done.

So that's Andrew Breitbart and what he does.  He goes hard at liberals through his series of websites, such as Big Journalism, and he's not afraid to admit his ends justify some sleazy means.

Now for the Fox Nation article:

Pig Maher Stooge and Rolling Stone Hack Matt Taibbi: Where's the Outrage From NBC?

Matt Taibbi, an outspoken journalist for Rolling Stone, wrote a blog entry about Mr. Breitbart that proclaimed happiness about the passing.  Shocking as it sounds, the Fox Nation post doesn't delve much into the facts of the blog post, but it does link to the full story over at News Busters:

Rolling Stone On Breitbart: He's Dead.  Good!

From the above News Busters article, here's a quote from Matt Taibbi's blog post, titled "Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche."  We'll get to the actual blog post in a little bit.

So Andrew Breitbart is dead. Here’s what I have to say to that, and I’m sure Breitbart himself would have respected this reaction: Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.

So yeah, it's a pretty strong opening and if you know anything about Matt Taibbi's style, he's a pretty in-your-face type of writer.  As the News Busters article mentions, Mr. Taibbi once wrote an article titled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope" as Pope John Paul II's health was failing.  The News Busters article quotes another section from the Rolling Stone blog post where Taibbi tries to justify his "fuck him" comments.

But (Andrew Breitbart) also had enough of a sense of humor to appreciate why someone like me shouldn’t bother to pretend I’m sad he’s dead. He wouldn’t, in my place. So to use one of his favorite words: Good riddance, cocksucker.* Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

News Busters, who specifically made a point not to link to the full blog post over at Rolling Stone, called Taibbi and his words "abhorrent."  Liberal responses to Mr. Breitbart's death led to this article over at The American Spectator:

Why Liberals Cheer When Conservatives Die

A quote from that article:

1. Why do liberal pundits delight in the death of conservatives? 

2. Why do liberal pundits have no shame in publicly expressing these sentiments? 

You can probably give the same answer to both questions. Liberal pundits hate conservatives and their hatred of all things conservative knows no bounds. I would also add that liberal pundits aren't very mature.

Maybe Matt Taibbi's blog post wasn't very mature - not that readers of The American Spectator, Fox Nation, or News Busters would know since none of those sites provided links directly to the Rolling Stone post to get the full context for themselves.  For the sake of argument, though, let's say it isn't mature.  The American Spectator article ends with the following:

Outside of the bin Ladens of this world, I refrain from saying unkind words about the dearly departed. If someone dies and I have nothing nice to say about them, I don't say anything at all. If only Taibbi, Yglesias and other liberal pundits practiced this principle. But in order to practice this principle one must have class and wisdom and neither Taibbi and Yglesias have demonstrated these qualities.

It's an approach I can get behind, honestly.  I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news Bin Laden was dead.  The news got reported very late in my home time zone of Eastern, but I had stayed up for other reasons and had the TV on in the background.  I remember (and maybe I shouldn't be proud to admit this) feeling happiness when Bin Laden's death had been confirmed and pride as word of SEAL Team Six's heroics came to light... but I would never publicly say "Fuck Bin Laden and I'm glad he's dead" even though part of me felt just that.

That's me, though.  I'm not Matt Taibbi, I don't have his job, and I don't have a career based on an outspoken history.  That's Mr. Taibbi's approach to the subjects he covers.  It's obviously also Mr. Breitbart's as well.

Not once in the articles linked above did I ever see reference to Mr. Breitbart's reactions to the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy.  Here are some of his tweets from the day after Sen. Kennedy's death:

Kennedy is my villain. He took me from left to right during the Thomas hearings. Really. Then read Joe McGuiness book & I wanted to puke.

and:

he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'.

and:

This duplicitous bastard spit on GWB's face when he reached across party lines. Twas a grade school trick. Even til the end, he was a prick.

and:

I'll shut my mouth for Carter. That's just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement.

and finally:

Rest in Chappaquiddick

I'm not trying to say this is right or wrong, just like I'm not trying to judge what Mr. Taibbi wrote.  You could argue that Mr. Brietbart was attacking a possible murderer where Mr. Taibbi attacked a simple critic, but I don't think that matters too much.

I won't link to it here, but there are videos out there on the interwebs showing Saddam Hussein's hanging.  The actual event is gruesome, like any death can be, but what struck me about the portions I saw was the heckling Hussein endured as he was led to the gallows and prepared for execution.  At one point, Hussein responded, and while I couldn't understand a word spoken by either party, I could understand Hussein's expression.  It was a mix of the strongest fear and sadness you can possibly imagine because while we all are saddened by and scared of death to some degree, we are shielded from those fears by the knowledge that it isn't guaranteed to happen in the next five minutes.  Try to imagine a lifetime of that fear and sadness compiled into the horrific last few minutes of your life as you knowingly confront your own passing.  Now imagine dealing with that while someone shouts insults at you from the audience (yeah, the audience that is crazy stoked at how bad things are going for you at that exact moment).

Honestly, I found it a bit heart-breaking.  I'm not saying Hussein was an angel or didn't deserve a death sentence, but I felt that he deserved his last few moments on Earth to be his own.  Carry out justice with dignity for everyone involved.  Maybe that makes me a bleeding heart liberal, but there it is.

My point is that Mr. Breitbart and Mr. Taibbi are birds of a feather in their approach to subjects.  It's misleading to work up outrage over the Rolling Stone blog post while not admitting to Mr. Breitbart's similar behavior concerning other public deaths.

And speaking of that Rolling Stone post... here it is:

Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche

After reading the post over, it's actually a fairly complimentary piece about Andrew Breitbart, albeit in a caustic tone you would expect given the topic and the writer.  That was the point of the two quotes way up above that News Busters quoted out of context.  Taibbi and Breitbart used similar tactics, so here's Taibbi's tribute to Breitbart applying those tactics.  Some quotes (a few might be lengthy):

For instance, it would be dishonest not to tip a hat to him for that famous scene when he hijacked Anthony Weiner’s own self-immolating "apology" press conference, and held up the entire event by standing at the lectern and congratulating himself at length, before Weiner could let the humiliating healing begin. 

For that one, brief, shining moment– still one of the most painful-to-watch YouTube spectacles of all time, right there with Mitt Romney’s priceless attempt at singing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" with a group of black voters in Florida in 2008 – Breitbart could legitimately claim to have the biggest, hairiest balls on earth.

Here's one more:

Furthermore, the ACORN videos made by Breitbart and his two young acolytes, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe – it’s hard not to see the inspired humor behind their elaborate stunt. And anyone who’s heard their proposals before ACORN staffers to bring underage girls over the border as part of a white-(or nonwhite-) slaving startup firm, and doesn’t think the ACORN responses (or non-responses, as it were) were shocking, they’re deluding themselves. In the Baltimore office, they ran the whole underage hooker-den spiel past an ACORN staffer, and got the following response: "You are gonna use three of them – they are gonna be under 16, so you is eligible to get child tax credit and additional child tax credit." 

That is seriously messed up material. Did they edit the videos heavily? Hell yes. Did they make ACORN’s behavior out to be a lot worse than it was? Absolutely. But there’s no way to watch the raw footage and not grasp how totally nuts some of this ACORN "counseling" was. We have to give Breitbart that. 

Breitbart has written some nasty things about me personally, once contrived to publish my private emails online, and even teamed up with Rush Limbaugh to humorously mis-identify me as a behind-the-scenes marionettist of the "media-Democrat industrial complex" (Breitbart thought I was improperly advising Occupy leaders), but all that’s okay. I think today, it’s safe to stand back and simply recognize that while many people go through their lives without leaving distinguishing marks, Andrew Breitbart definitely had his moments. 

But he also had enough of a sense of humor to appreciate why someone like me shouldn’t bother to pretend I’m sad he’s dead. He wouldn’t, in my place. So to use one of his favorite words: Good riddance, cocksucker.* Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

It sounds like an honest tribute in Mr. Taibbi's consistent, acerbic voice to someone who had a similarly consistent, acerbic voice.  But there was the backlash, probably fueled by pieces like the one from Fox Nation at the top of this post.  Threatening calls and texts to Matt Taibbi and his wife, prank calls to Rolling Stone, the publishing of personal info on the web, and a Wikipedia hacking.  Mr. Taibbi updated his post in response, stating that he had intended to write a positive obituary of sorts about Andrew Breitbart, which meant applying the filter we almost all apply to someone's life when they have recently passed.  In response to the backlash, Mr. Taibbi, removed that filter and linked to things presenting the fuller, less flattering image of the man Andrew Breitbart was.  I won't link to them because I have no reason to remove that filter.

Either way, a young man with a wife and four children has passed at far too young an age.  My condolences to his family.