Jimmy Zuma

Jimmy Zuma
Location
Washington, District of Columbia,
Birthday
August 01
Bio
After ten years haunting online political forums and much longer as a disability rights advocate, Jimmy Zuma started the online political journal, Smart v. Stupid. Since then, he has emerged as one of the left’s most direct new voices. Almost immediately, Jimmy was offered the opportunity to join the political team at Technorati where he writes DC Water Cooler, a weekly feature on what the politicians and pundits are talking about. Most recently, his columns began appearing in the Tucson Sentinel in Tucson Arizona. He is also an occasional contributor to OpEd News. Jimmy's goal is to return vetting to the marketplace of ideas, by elevating the status of smart ideas and debunking dumb ones.

Jimmy Zuma's Links

MY LINKS
Editor’s Pick
NOVEMBER 18, 2011 8:00AM

The Republican ticket that Democrats want

Rate: 8 Flag

 

The Iowa Debate

 

Whenever a campaign-killing allegation erupts—Bachmann’s Medicaid billing, Cain’s serial sexual harassment, Ron Paul’s eyebrow falling off, and now Gingrich’s lobbying scandal, the perp is quick to blame a Democratic conspiracy. OK, Ron Paul didn’t exactly blame Dems when his brow dropped. His campaign blamed tiredness. Follicular fatigue, I suppose…

Frankly, when these simpletons blame Democrats, actual Dems scratch their heads as to why anyone might believe it. So let’s clear the air. Here’s a rundown of who Democrats want to be the Republican nominee.

Despite his press narrative, Newt Gingrich isn’t intelligent. But he is articulate, cunning, and extremely manipulative. That’s what passes for smart in today’s Republican Party. It has become a party of predators.

Currently, he is trying to manipulate you into believing that his only weakness is a big mouth. This obscures his three marriages, hypocritical adultery, phony “Gingrich Awards,” and the eighty-four ethics charges that led to his being the only Speaker of the House ever forced to resign from office. Bring him on as presidential nominee, but Democrats (except for maybe Joe Biden, who loves a good fight) hope you’ll leave him home as VP. He’s a pretty accomplished attack dog.

Herman Cain is high on the list of presidential nominees any Democrat would love. He is a world-class fathead, which leads him to imagine—wrongly—that he can wing it. He owns a drip, drip scandal—accusations of serial sexual harassment. And there is some funny business with campaign spending.

He’d likely look the fool in any debate with the President. And he solves two particular problems for Democrats. First, he is less attractive to women than the others. Second having two black candidates probably means that hardcore racists will stay home. The Republican Party is not endemically racist, but if you are a racist it is the party you’ll choose. For these two reasons, Cain is probably their biggest turnout killer. Bring him on!

Ron Paul is funny, but not because he has a sense of humor. He’s a strange little man who talks like Gollum and vainly wears fake eyebrows. Paul benefits from his libertarian ideology, a belief system that hides pathological selfishness under the covers of both liberal and conservative ideas. Paul’s curse is the zealots he attracts. His hectoring and histrionic acolytes repulse most people. That said he’d be the most comical candidate since that nasal-gnome, Ross Perot. Bring him on!

Rick Perry is much less formidable than anyone imagined. A few short months ago, Democrats feared a Perry campaign. But Perry is well on the way to failing the goofball test. Ridicule is the most powerful force in politics, and once you are seen as a doofus the battle is lost. Though everyone loves the affable class clown, few want him as their date. Bring him on!

Mitt Romney is a formidable politician. He’s likely to get crossover votes in the general election. But he has a little problem—about half of all Republicans think he’s a godless heathen. In the Republican party of today, there is no greater litmus test than religion. Mormon doesn’t cut it. Still, most Democrats would not want Romney as the Republican nominee. He could win.

To her credit, Michele Bachmann has learned a lot about campaigning. She has managed to remake herself from crazy-eyed, unfocused, and lunatic into an on-message, one-trick pony. She’s against OBAAAmacare even when the subject is Libya.

But competing with women in our chauvinistic culture is still a delicate balance. Attack too gently and the criticisms don’t stick. Attack too aggressively and Bachmann could generate a lot of sympathy votes. In the end, though, Bachmann’s only weapon is her gender—there is not much else going on up there. Bring her on!

Rick Santorum is a Google joke. See above.

Which brings us to the candidate Democrats most fear as the Republican presidential nominee, John Huntsman. Huntsman is the only Republican currently running who competes with Obama on talent, intelligence, wit and worldliness. He believes in science. And of the Republican field, he alone could probably be a pretty decent president. All of which means he doesn’t have a prayer of winning the nomination.

The only “R” candidates Democrats worry about—at all—are the two Mormons. Ironically, Dems are counting on rabid evangelicals to have their backs. As to the others, the idea that Liberals or Democrats might do anything to derail any one of them is laughable. They are Obama’s most likely path to a second term.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
if the presidency were 'x factor,' this would be a political survey. but there are real questions the nation must answer, and when this is the limit of discussion because ordinary people are merely watching 'x factor,' the political show, the answers are not likely to be good ones.

there may be some satisfaction in noting that homo sapiens is in equal or worse trouble everywhere else.
Amen, Jimmy.

The only two I have any regard for whatsoever…are Romney and Huntsman.

I hope they are the nominees, because I am convinced that no matter whom the Republics choose…that person will be elected our next president. Obama, unfairly in my opinion, has lost the liberal base…and the liberals seem intent on skinning themselves in order to “teach him a lesson.”

At least with Romney and/or Huntsman, we will not have a comedy show in the Oval Office.

But I doubt even one Mormon could become the Republican nominee…let alone two of them.
Not sure I can agree with your assessment. Whilh the idealouges in the GOP dont really like certain "cults" (which, given their druthers, includes Catholics, except when they help drum up anti-abortion votes) they simply loathe Dems. And when the Dem is of non-northern european decent, and with a funny name, well, I think they will fall over themselves to get to the voting booth.
Mind you when they do they wont have to pull any levers. The voting computers have already been programed. And not for the first time. What the last election taught the Rs was that they have to really suppress the vote because a massive turnout like last time can overcome their cheating ways.
I think at this point it's absolutely all over in terms of whose the most viable and able candidate. It's Romney and everybody knows it. The rest is all the usual fingling due to constituencies like the fundies who haven't been told yet by their leaders to vote for him despite being Mormon in order to vanquish the black night.

They will be loyal, but whether Obama's strategy (forced upon him for the most part) of reaching out to moderates is the real test. It bother's me now more OWS's aren't here on OS--fighting with the intransigence. It means they have already made their choice to withhold their vote, like their progenitors did, and therby turn the government back over to the regressives.

It ain't rocket science, but you better it isn't too early to take sides.
You know what Jimmy, one of them will beat Obama regardless of all your brilliant analysis. Then what will you be writing?
While I enjoyed the topic and the writing, I have to disagree with you a bit on content.

I must be missing Romney's formidability, because to me he seems like a flopper who will say whatever people with money and power want him to say. That makes him a fantastic candidate for the GOP--what party doesn't want their own puppet?--but he won't win against Obama. He's probably the best candidate they have that will stick to current GOP rhetoric like glue; that's why he's being shoved down our throats.

Newt is actually sounding pretty good in the debates; he's playing it smart. There's potential cross-party and independent appeal there from those who are really disillusioned with Obama, and that's a rather large number of voters.

When Perry is on, he really sounds and looks presidential. However, he'd never survive the general debates. The GOP candidates don't seem to want to bring out the truth about those stats he always brags about, but you can bet the Dems would make quick work of him if he were to get the GOP nod.

Huntsman is just plain creepy, and voters have not heard much about him. Since everyone else has had their turn as the frontrunner, they may be saving him for last and the nod. Who knows.

And Ron Paul. Did you fall for the mainstream media manipulation, or what? Dr. Paul's biggest problem is that he really wants to explain things to us. Unfortunately, debates aren't a good place to do that. His campaign needs to work with him on paring it down to talking points and soundbites. Ron Paul has an excellent shot at trouncing Obama, but the GOP would NEVER give him the nomination. He's just too far apart from the GOP on their core issues, he refuses to vote-trade, and he won't be manipulated. And they know it.

Circumstances are ripe for a 3rd-party victory this year, with the right ticket. The GOP field stinks for the GOP; too many voters are too ticked off at Obama for saying one thing and doing the opposite. Money doesn't have to be a factor in 2012, either. More and more people get their information from the internet, which means that a well-run internet/grassroots campaign can compete with well-endowed, corporate-funded warchests; most cash could be dedicated to appearances/travel by using the internet to get the point across.

My ideal ticket would be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. Widespread bi-partisan & independent appeal; the novelty and cooperative appeal of a bi-partisan ticket; dedicated grassroots and internet supporters; funding ability; military servicemen support; the right message [for the most part]: end the wars, end the foreign military operations/bases, bring all the troops home, end the Fed, eliminate expensive, unnecessary federal agencies, return powers to the states.

Dr. Paul has stated that he won't run on a 3rd party ticket, citing the extreme disparity with which 3rd parties are treated. And that's a real shame, because this could be the election that brings true change. Without Dr. Paul, change is unlikely.
OH MY GOD-- Jimmy Zuma doesn't like Ron Paul!

Run, Dr. Paul -- Run away! Jimmy's a-com'n !

The real danger here is that if Jimmy were to actually grasp what Ron Paul is saying he might find a real flaw.

Dr. Paul -- Jimmy and Salon are after you -- I'M SO SCARED!

(I peed a little)
Sick of Stupid:

Yes, Paul, Kucinich and Sanders are all voted against the Iraq war. So I can understand how a liberal would mention the three of them in the same sentence. But let’s peel the onion a little, what do we find, Paul supports the flat tax and Kucinich and Sanders never saw a tax they didn’t like. The flat tax is effectively a massive tax cut for the rich and a tax hike for everyone else. This is but one issue why liberals will never support Paul and Conservatives will never support Kucinich or Sanders. That leaves Obama versus whatever Republican emerges from the primary. When voters are faced with that question, the tea leaves are increasingly pointing to the Republican. However, you liberals do have one wild card to play that in my opinion wins the election for Obama, an independent run by Paul. Not even Paul would risk another four years with (Zero, NoBama, Obummer, Owebama, Campaigner in Chief, am I missing one?) and make a run at the White House. I suppose it can't hurt to hope, that was his message from the last election.
Sickofstupid - It would be great in my mind for a 3rd party victory even if the person wasn't my choice. It is what is needed to get the 2 party hold broken. Unfortunately, while I think we a ripe for a 3rd party run, I don't think a victory is likely.
Paul is the most likely 3rd party person. If he does so it would probably just help Obama win.
Everyone should read this because it really is the way you say it .
Johnny, as I said, it's exceedingly unlikely that Dr. Paul would get the GOP nod. They want a puppet, and one is at hand.

I can't say that I agree with Dr. Paul on every issue. However, I don't think there's a politician that exists that matches all my positions, so it's an issue of choosing the best available. To do that, one should look at the most pressing current issues, and also at what we value most in the people who represent us in our government.

The constant warfare is the main reason we're spending much more than we take in, and why our deficit is so large. Ending the wars, avoiding starting new ones with nations that don't pose any serious threat to us, closing most if not all of our military bases on foreign soil & bringing the vast majority of our troops home--finally--to help patrol the leaky sieve that is our southern border would immediately pare away a substantial chunk of our annual expenses AND greatly reduce the need to borrow money.

The manner in which the Federal Reserve operates is complex, and is an enormous threat to our individual liberty. Their ability to create new money on a whim harms us, because whenever they do that, the money and assets that we have are worth a little less. Supposedly, they are a part of the federal government. In practice, the executive and legislative branches don't have control over the Fed's monetary policy--which affects us ALL--because the Fed does not need governmental approval to set policy. The courts have ruled that the Federal Reserve is a system of independent, privately-owned corporations. Auditing such an entity-- particularly in the wake of a depression and subsequent "recession"--is just common sense. Substantially changing that system would be even better.

As for the taxation issue, you're absolutely right that a flat tax hurts the poor and helps the rich [unless there are reasonable exceptions; incidentally, a national sales tax would disproportionately harm the poor even more than a flat tax]. But Dr. Paul has also proposed doing away with the IRS and the personal income tax entirely. This isn't as radical an idea as it might seem, at first glance. Only about a third of federal revenue comes from personal income tax. By reducing federal spending [much of the reduction would be covered by the foreign policy changes Dr. Paul would make] and making sensible changes elsewhere, the income tax could be eliminated altogether.

I'll admit that I don't agree with Dr. Paul on Social Security, because it's just not that broken, and because too many other changes would have to happen in order to eliminate it. Most people who depend on Social Security do so because they simply did not make enough money to cover their basic bills, let alone actually save anything while they were working. Until a feasible, true living wage requirement is passed [or legislation requiring businesses to provide reasonable contributions to retirement plans], we can't get rid of Social Security.

I value intelligence, effort, honesty & integrity in government, and Dr. Paul has them all. He's a novelty in that you can trust him to work towards his campaign promises and not completely flop on the positions he holds, as Obama has on so many issues. His record in Congress bears this out. He clearly has a good understanding of economic issues, healthcare issues [which we'll desperately need when/if Obamacare fully kicks in] and foreign policy. Active duty military donates to him more than they do to any other candidate of any party. He understands that America is sick of constant warfare and misuse of our military personnel. He gets the danger of leaving our Mexican border so inadequately protected.

I have to disagree that an independent run by Dr. Paul would mean the election for Obama. Obama's support has dramatically decreased, and for good reason. Dr. Paul would appeal to GOP voters because of his views on taxation, liberty & abortion; he'd appeal to disillusioned Democrats who bought the hope and change and got the same old DC; he'd appeal to independents who are sick of the partisan bickering that prevents any significant accomplishments, especially if he chooses a Democratic VP like Kucinich.

I do think you're underestimating the appeal of his message. The biggest problem is that his real message needs to get to the people in order for him to have a shot. The GOP debate formats have either mostly excluded him, particularly from the issues he's strongest on, or fail to allow him time to explain the reasoning behind his statements [such as why Iran is not the threat everyone is making them out to be].

We need a POTUS that we can trust and believe in, and Obama just does not fit the bill. Ron Paul would be good for America, and the issues we currently face are issues he's well-prepared to face. If nothing else, a credible 3rd-party run would be one step closer to breaking free from the single-party-disguised-as-two system we have now.
Joseph, again I have to disagree that a 3rd-party Ron Paul run would help Obama win. Democrats are not particularly happy with Obama. Think about his major campaign promises, then compare those to his actions over the lase 4 years, particularly those actions that occured during the two years of fillibuster-proof Congressional control by Democrats.

Ron Paul has so much more support than what's reported in the media. He's won virtually every internet poll--despite what the media reports; [the screenshots capturing this fact are out there]--because his supporters took it upon themselves to ensure that they voted in them--without any formal organization by his campaign. That's pretty dedicated. He consistently makes the top 3 in the straw polls, though this is downplayed and sometimes, skipped right over.

The fact that the GOP frontrunner changes constantly indicates that most people are not attracted to any one candidate that's actually getting decent airtime.

Yes, some of his supporters are a little weird. But if you vote for someone just because all the cool kids are doing it, why vote at all? Yes, voting is important. That's exactly why we shouldn't vote stupid, but that doesn't seem to a lot of people from doing it anyway.

If we vote based on a candidate's policy, integrity and knowledge, Ron Paul wins. If we vote based on the likelihood of real change [not "Maybe Obama will keep his campaign promises this time around, since he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected"], Ron Paul wins. And if we vote based on what's right for America and Americans, Ron Paul wins. If we vote ignorant or stupid, we all lose....again.
If given the choice between Paul and Owebama, I choose Paul in a heartbeat. However, voters will not have that choice. Paul is not climbing in the GOP polls, meaning his only shot at being President is a run as an independent. If he runs as an independent, the choice will be Obummer, Paul and whoever emerges from the GOP. Many conservatives will be torn between Paul and the GOP but very few liberals will have a difficult time (you being one of the few) making the choice between Zero and Paul. That is why Joseph, myself and many political pundits all agree on the likely ramifications if Paul runs as an independent.

One a side note, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a relatively small portion of the budget when compared to the various entitlement programs that nobody in Washington is doing anything about. And the voting record on major legislation, such as Obamacare and the Stimulus, proves we don’t have a “single-party-disguised-as-two system”.
I think James Carville summed it up pretty well when asked to comment on the Republican candidates recently "This crop of candidates is not just weak, it is a joke".

But sadly, when I think of President Obama, my next thought is "won the battle, lost the war". Had he allowed himself a bit more seasoning, in terms of developing leadership skills and life experience, he'd be a lock on having a full eight years to implement his vision.
I was hoping for Palin-Bachmann. Twice teh stoopid!
The thing about Huntsman is I am unconvinced of his veracity. I can't help but be suspicious and think he might be part of a massive bait and switch. He would attract more liberal voters, but once in office, I think he would be Republican and do all the things the others keep discussing. I just don't trust his stances, which are antithetical to the stances of his religion and his base. After all, he is a part of a party that has done some really terrible things recently. How far from those stances can he be? In other words, you are who you hang with.
This is offensive propaganda, get a clue buddy

"funny, but not because he has a sense of humor. He’s a strange little man who talks like Gollum and vainly wears fake eyebrows. Paul benefits from his libertarian ideology, a belief system that hides pathological selfishness under the covers of both liberal and conservative ideas. Paul’s curse is the zealots he attracts. "
My exchanges with Libertarians here on OS and elsewhere have led me to completely eliminate him and is ideology from serious consideration.

Eliminating the Fed, the gold standard, a "flat" tax, or "no" revenue tax are the logical deductions from a "fixed" ideology that allow for little if any compromise, and therefore make that candidate unfit to govern in a government such as ours.

I hate watching "faux liberals" squirm when in truth they are not going to get their perfect world today, tomorrow, or the day after and are unwilling to accept politics over their agenda.

That's how the right wins, and how the "left" and liberals may soon be locked out again entirely--and then nobody is going to know who is responsible. Certainly, not faux liberals--right?
Jimmy, the real question for 2012 is "who is the democrat the Democratic Party wants as their standard bearer.

Already a way left of center political machine, Obama has turned the party into a political activist group a tad to the right of Fidel Castro.
With two years of no "job program", but "accomplishments" such as Obamacare, that most Americans did not want, and a stimulus package that was "packed" with billions of dollars to favorite groups, green idiocy, and Governor's that destroyed the balance sheet having been wasteful with their taxpayers money, making hidden promises to unions that cannot be met.
Obama's "successes" were mostly multi-thousand pages of hidden perks, intrusive government controls over the lives of Americans, and passed unread by the "peoples Congress."

America was lied to by Mr. Obama with his "shovel ready projects" going to create millions of jobs. As it turned out, even Obama had to admit that there were NO such projects that were "shovel ready."
If he wasn't lying to the public, than he was just awfully naieve and bought the lines that were put on his teleprompter. Since he has never been responsible for running anything, it seems quite possible that our President was sold a bill of goods by his on advisors.

Obama's was a major success for the Republican Party that was being written off as a "regional party" after the 2008 elections. People came out in droves to form an organic movement of citizens who got off the couch and were no longer the "silent majority." The Pelosi hold on the House was taken away in a landslide victory, and very strong inroads were made in Reid's Senate.
The biggest losers were the "moderate democrats" or "left of center" democrats" who were voted out of office. The wreckage left behind in the House are mostly radical leftists in safe districts from California to New Jersey. Somehow I don't get the feeling that the Pelosi/Waxman/Durbin/Frank/Waters, Lee agenda is where the public is these days.
The people of America are not radical leftist, or radical right...but there is an absolute tilt to the right. Independents are a dying breed thanks of Obama. In the chaos he has created there is no room for a "moderate". You have to take sides or withdraw from the field.

It is simply the first rule of physics applied to politics. For every action their is an equal, and opposite reaction. In reaction to the radical left Obama Administration, with its dozens of "Czars", communists like Van Jones, and people who consider Mao their mentor.
Obama was not vetted in 2007 and 2008. He was able to slide through the process and little about this man is known. My guess is that most of the drones here could not say more than three sentences about this man's history.

I don't have an answer to this question, but the brilliant liberals here might be able to assist this neocon. Why would one of the first acts of Barack Obama upon entering the Oval Office, be to "lock up" his personnel records at the schools he attended? I don't know of ANY President that issued such an Executive Order.

I also think it is going to be interesting in 2012 to again hear about his only "casual" relationship with Bill Ayers, the twenty years spent in the church of the good Reverand Wright, his relationship with convicted felon Rezko, and maybe even see at least a few reporters go out to Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago to do some investigative reporting. Doesn't have to be the dozens that went up to Wasilla, Alaska, but just a few really intelligent journalists, which may be an Oxymoron.