Decision ‘08

Florida - Gateway To The Nomination

At least, that’s the hope of McCain and Romney. Sadly, I think we can say, based on early leaks of exit polling, it’s goodbye to Rudy Giuliani, who I quite firmly believed (still do) would be the best hope for Republicans in a 2008 election that’s shaping up to be brutal. Alas, the news gets worse, for now: with 4% of the vote in, Mitt Romney, a man who has zero chance of winning the general election, is leading this pivotal state. More later…

UPDATE 6:41 p.m.: Oh-ho - but see now! With 7% in McCain takes the lead…it’s going to be one of those nights. Strap in…

UPDATE 7:01 p.m.: Suprise! Hillary wins big…considering that no one else campaigned in the state due to the DNC stripping Florida’s delegates, this is the biggest non-story of the night…however, if Michigan and Florida’s delegates end up getting seated somehow, Hillary is going to look like a genius…

UPDATE 7:13 p.m.: Well, it’s pile-on-Giuliani time both on CNN and here at Decision ‘08. Let me state as a fan that his strategy was completely repudiated, there is no doubt about that. With 30% in, McCain is up by a mere 1%…YIKES! - a real nail-biter…

UPDATE 7:35 p.m.: Signs are pointing to a McCain victory - not time to call it yet, but Intrade has swung massively towards McCain, with 37% in, he’s maintaining a 2% lead, and the Romney lovers at the Corner have grown very quiet all of a sudden…if Rudy drops out, endorses McCain, and McCain wins, this is one Republican who’s going to wake up to a brighter day…

UPDATE 8:14 p.m.: Woo-hoo! McCain wins…obviously, I wanted Giuliani, but it was clear for a good week or more that wasn’t going to happen. Romney - simply put - is unelectable. At least we have a candidate who can put up a fight now!…and this victory, while it doesn’t give McCain the nomination, puts him well down the path…

23 Responses to “Florida - Gateway To The Nomination”

1 Ryan Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I think Romney’s ability to win the general election is underrated and Giuliani’s is way overrated. Romney is basically a decent, smart guy. Freed of the need to pander incessantly to win the base, I think he could turn out to be a formidable candidate - especially against someone like Hillary. As for Giuliani, he’s a megalomaniacal fascist who has been trounced in every single primary so far. He has gotten fewer votes than Ron Paul and his whole platform is “let’s blow up more brown people”. Good riddance, scumbag.
2 Punditish Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mitt Romney, a man who has zero chance of winning the general election, is leading this pivotal state.

Methinks you’ll catch hell for that one, Mark. Romney supports have been flooding comment sections all over the ‘Net the last few days.

I mostly agree, though. I wouldn’t say zero, of course, but early polls have him matching up very poorly against either Democratic candidate. We’re a long way out, so you never know, but it’s still amusing hearing his supporters trumpet him as the most likely to win in November, when common sense and all the polling we have on the matter says otherwise.
3 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Yes, Ryan, Giuliani wants to blow up ‘brown people’. Where do you get this crap? Come on, man, you’re smarter than that…but believe that if you want…self-delusion is free, after all…
4 TWL Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Mark,

I have to go with Ryan on this one. I won’t use quite so strong language, but Giuliani has a lot of negatives that haven’t been played up yet (also, they’re actually negatives - I think he’d be a bad President). He has a history of governing in an insular, even hostile way. He also has a history of cronyism, made worse by the fact that a lot of his friends turn out to be criminals.

When Romney’s on his game, he sounds like the kind of calm, competent guy that you would trust with your life savings. That’s not half bad, I’d say.
5 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Well, criticism of Giuliani is certainly fair game. Saying his whole campaign was based on blowing up brown people is not only factually incorrect, it’s a repugnant smear…
6 Ryan Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Mark, his campaign is based on blowing up Iran and 9/11. You may choose to see whatever racial overtones you want, but how can anyone doubt that the centerpiece of his entire campaign is that he is the best-qualified to torture and kill people who are, in fact, brown? He’s a warmongering jackass and I don’t feel any need to mince words over the disgusting SOB. The sooner he’s out of the public eye, the better off this country will be.
7 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Yes, Ryan, the important thing to remember about 9/11 and our sanctions against Iran was that they involved brown people, not terrorists. Grow up, my friend, that’s sophistry of the most peurile sort…Looking for racist motives in the choice to fight terror is shamefully shallow and I won’t argue it further with you. That’s absurd…

I suggest you get on board the reality train before it leaves the station and think a little before you post…you hate Giuliani. Fine. Don’t call him a racist because he’s strong on terror, for God’s sake…or if you’re going to, bring some evidence to the table, instead of smears…
8 Ryan Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Strong on terror? Ha. Only in the fevered Republican mind can war with Iraq and threats to Iran be “strong on terror”. And come on. The term “Islamofascism” is fundamentally an anti-Muslim slur. Whether you consider that racist or not, it’s at least bigotry of some kind.

Whatever. Doesn’t matter any more. He got exactly what he deserved in these primaries: pantsed. Again, good freaking riddance to rotten jerk.
9 Fargus Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
On update 2: If FL’s and MI’s delegates get seated and it decides the Democratic nomination, Hillary won’t look like a genius so much as a conniving cheater. You honestly think there wouldn’t be some bitter, bitter fights from the other candidates in that event?

On update 4: I think the Democratic New Hampshire Primary sort of showed that Intrade can be as unreliable as polling.
10 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Ryan, yes, we all remember Giuliani’s calls for wars on Mexico and Spain…you know, because his whole campaign was based on killing brown people and all…

Fargus, I agree with you on Intrade - it’s way overrated as a predictive tool - however, it’s an EXCELLENT source of current sentiment…
11 Ryan Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Just like George Bush has called for war on Saudi Arabia because we’re fighting a War on Terror?
12 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Wait…Saudis aren’t brown? Oh, sorry, I got confused by the subtleties of your well-reasoned argument…
13 Clint Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Ryan-

Re: “Islamofascism”

So… is there an acceptable non-”bigotted” term for the ideology dedicated to the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate under shariah law?

Or am I, in your view, just a bigot for trying to use five syllables to refer to this movement and its adherents rather than twenty-three syllables? Perhaps we should describe them as DttEoaWWCuSL’s — Wcuslies for short?

(For extra credit: when a history book describes Franco as a “Spanish fascist” is this an anti-Spanish slur?
14 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 12:31 am
I think there’s a difference between using an adjective and a noun (as in “Spanish fascist”) and making up a whole new word as though nothing in existence could possibly describe the horror (and thus also tying Islam and fascism closer in people’s minds). To call someone a Spanish fascist implies not only that not all Spanish people are fascists, but that not all fascists are Spanish. The words put together that way indicate a special intersection of two sets. To call someone an “Islamofascist” linguistically places them out of any previously recognized descriptive spheres, and that’s just hyperbolic.
15 Andy Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:43 am
The words put together that way indicate a special intersection of two sets. To call someone an “Islamofascist” linguistically places them out of any previously recognized descriptive spheres, and that’s just hyperbolic.

Give me a freaking break Fargus. I’ve already showed you weeks ago that the term Islamic fascism was around for decades, long before it became fashionable for closet bigots like Ryan to call non-whites “brown people”. Long before Americans even clued in to the fact that certain sects of Islam wanted nothing less than to stand on the neck of infidels like us.

Furthermore, the term first gained popularity amongst “brown people” that objected to the irrational longing for 7th century lifestyles based on Sharia, because it accurately describes the implicit notion that not all Muslims are fascists and not all fascists are Muslims, yet one had best beware the malignant evil that lies at the nexus when these two worldviews are connected at the hip.

Tell you what, when they quit calling us infidels, implying that we all deserve dhimmitude, then I’ll retire the logical & theological bridge between Islam & fascism.

Back to “Brown people” and how it is PC stupid. In all the ruckus emanating from Kenya, it is clear that Islamofascism is at the root, yet, try as I might, I’m only seeing Black people involved. For some strange reason, brown people are strangely absent, even as Christians are slaughtered in their churches - all in the name of Allah. Before the pagan or secular Kenyans get too complacent, Allah’s warriors will be coming for them next. But I guess these un-brown people have nothing to fear from us since Barack Obama and their leader chat on a regular basis.
16 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 9:09 am
“Islamic fascism” is different from “Islamofascism.”

Give me a freaking break, Andy. It’s almost as if you didn’t read my post.
17 Sean P Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“Islamic fascism” is different from “Islamofascism.”

Dude, you have way — way — too much time on your hands. You honestly mean to tell me that if all us members of the neocon death machine started saying “Islamic fascist” instead of “islamofascist” that everything would be kosher?
18 Fargus Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Far from it. Only that the word has linguistic implications that you plainly refuse to accept.
19 Sean P Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Maybe the issue isn’t so much what I refuse to accept but the fact that — no matter whether the term “Islamic fascism”, “Islamofascism”, or “fascists who also happen to be Islamic even though there is no natural correlation between the two” was used, some deconstructionist windbag wound find some reason to take offense.
20 Andy Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
That’s why I deliberately changed from “Islamofascism” to “Islamic fascism”. Because there ain’t no difference in parlance.

Lazy? Perhaps.
Colloquial? Of course.
Accurate in intent & purpose? Absolutely. (Frindle is a case in point)

Solecistic? Only in the same way that anal retentive purists would object over “ain’t”, double negatives and delight in exercising the gamut of esoteric syntactic judo in order to impugn bigotry and derive offense thereof.

Antics like this is how we come to situations like the PC crowd going ballistic over the term “niggardly”. How pathetic…
21 peter Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Sounds like Andy is pretty niggled.
22 Andy Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Snigger
23 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » A Do-Over? On What Grounds? Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
[…] was on record, at the time of the Florida primary, as follows: Hillary wins big…considering that no one else campaigned in the state due to the DNC […]