Romney's Early Drafts

Ross is right, The Weekly Standard's parody early draft of the rainbow of faiths section of Mitt Romney's speech is pretty brilliant.

On the other hand, Kate Sheppard is right to see something a bit underhanded in the respectable right "joking" about Barack Obama being a secret Muslim while the non-respectable right keeps circuating email smears making the same point.

Comments

Gack, I do normally try not to go radically off-topic, but check out the new general election matchup poll today from CNN:

vs Huckabee

Edwards +25
Obama +15
Clinton +10

vs McCain

Edwards +8
Obama 0
Clinton -2

vs Romney

Edwards +22
Obama +13
Clinton +9

vs Giuliani

Edwards +9
Obama +7
Clinton +6

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 9:35 AM

On the other hand, Kate Sheppard is right to see something a bit underhanded in the respectable right "joking" about Barack Obama being a secret Muslim while the non-respectable right keeps circuating email smears making the same point.

Whatever. That seems like really small beer to complain about. And when did either The Corner or The Weekly Standard become respectable?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 11, 2007 9:35 AM

Since Petey blazed the off topic trail . . .

Is there any way we can get Matt to kill that NJPSE ad with the scrolling ticker? It gives my firefox a wicked case of the slows. And political prediction markets are pretty much no use anyway.

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 9:56 AM

SP
Get the flashblocker extension for firefox. Works great.

Posted by crack | December 11, 2007 10:01 AM

Breaking news: CNN poll confirms republicans marginally more likely to support white male than white woman or black male.

Posted by right | December 11, 2007 10:04 AM

and the only way Democrats lose is if they run Hillary Clinton against Father Time . . .

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 10:07 AM

thanks crack!

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 10:09 AM

That's great, Matt! I wonder how effective that speech will be for the GOP base if even the WEEKLY STANDARD is mocking it.

Posted by Ron | December 11, 2007 10:22 AM

"and the only way Democrats lose is if they run Hillary Clinton against Father Time . . ."

Well Barack doesn't beat Father Time either.

And FWIW, I've got real money bet on Father Time to win the GOP nomination, though that has something to do with the ridiculously good odds you can get on that bet...

-----

And seriously, Edwards is beating two of the major GOP candidates by 20+ points. The last time we won a Presidential election by 20 points, we got Medicare and Civil Rights out of the following Congress...

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 10:32 AM

"Breaking news: CNN poll confirms republicans marginally more likely to support white male than white woman or black male."

Edwards averages a 9 point better margin than Clinton/Obama over the top 4 GOP hopefuls. That's a bit more than "marginal".

And I think Edwards' electability advantage has a lot more to do with his region and rural roots than with his gender or race.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 10:35 AM

"I think Edwards' electability advantage has a lot more to do with his region and rural roots than with his gender or race."

*(E) All of the above

As for the e-mail smear campaign against Obama and the coy references to it in the right-wing press, that's just their SOP. I'd love to see someone do a thorough research piece on the phenomenon of alternate universe facts spread by right-wing chain e-mails, since I'm convinced that this is one of the biggest problems in American politics. My rural relatives seem to get most of their news in this format, which may account for why they think evolution has been scientifically disproven and WMD have been found in Iraq.

But I can't bring myself to rip on the Weekly Standard today, since this is the first time they've ever made me laugh. Maybe tomorrow.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 11, 2007 11:04 AM

CNN poll confirms republicans marginally more likely to support white male than white woman or black male.

Which could make the difference, though.

If we became convinced that that nominating a woman or African-American would lose a significant (even if small (537)) number of votes, would it be worth it?

I mean that as an honest question, not a rhetorical way of saying it wouldn't be. There's a case to be made for not kowtowing to prejudice, obviously. But there's also a case for intense practicality, given the stakes.

Posted by Jason C. | December 11, 2007 11:14 AM

Wow, that was actually rather funny. Snake rassling is always good for a laugh. Am I the only one who is reminded of Reggie White's "Asians can take a watch and make it into a TV" speech? It's like a list of positive stereotypes. How does a community, any community, have a "tenderness of spirit" collectively without dropping ecstasy into the drinking water?

Posted by Reality Man | December 11, 2007 11:14 AM

LaFollette Progressive:
Here's your chance to rip on the Weekly Standard.
They can't trust their readers to realize it's a parody, so have the page boldly marked as such.

Posted by catclub | December 11, 2007 11:49 AM