Home / General / Little Ricky

Little Ricky


I’m a committed Mittens inevitabalist, but for those of you who would like to see a real race, the case for Santorum exploding all over the Republican Party…

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • c u n d gulag

    This is hysterical!
    (I hope…)

    The Republicans have been looking for some witless, Mitt-less candidate.

    They have been all over the map, with everyone from “Brainless” Bachmann (at the Iowa straw poll) to Herman “Fucking the help” Cane, in the fall – to Newt “Tri-wives” Gingrich, in the winter of his contentment.

    Maybe now, they’ve finally found their man!

    Icky Sticky Ricky is relatively young, fairly decent-looking (in a weak-chinned, dorky, doofus-lookin’ way), has a big family, and is solidly Conservative – to the point of being reactionary.
    He has the benefit of being highly corrupt.
    Rick is also stupid, ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic – and will gladly don the white hood of racism. Remember, he doesn’t want “blah people” getting too much of anything.

    Those are all considered “positives” too many Conservatives.

    Sometimes, we need to stand in awe of the suicidal stupidity of our enemies. If Rick is their standard-bearer this fall, they will have committed an act political suicide.

    And I say – LET THEM!

    Rick makes Goldwater look like Ike or Reagan.

    I’d love to watch this moron debate Obama.

    I’m sure the President won’t mind asking Rick about his feelings towards contraception and abortion.
    “Former Senator Santorum, do you really want WalMart, BP, or your local deli or bar owner, to determine whether your wife or girlfriend has access to birth control? Or does your administration mean to ban it outright?
    Please explain to the nation why that is a good idea.
    And what happens if she does get pregnant? Will your administration FORCE her, as well as the man who impregnated her, to have that baby, and pay to raise him or her? Will your administration be willing to help support raising that child that you’re forcing people to have? Will you help to pay them, or is that another “entitlement” you won’t support?”

    Time is narrowing for Conservatives to make a choice for who’s going to oppose President Obama. And if Rick is it, I’m all for it!

    Maybe there’s some mechanism that I haven’t heard of, which will allow them to choose a different candidate at their Convention. Maybe, if they can, they can choose someone who’ll have a chance in November.

    But they’re as likely to choose Jim DeMint as they are Jeb Bush – or Chris Christie. Paul
    “Throw Grandma From The Train” Ryan is as likely as Nikki Haley – or some relative moderate.

    Is Sarah “The Whore of Babblin’ On” Palin waiting on the sidelines, hoping that this is her big chance?

    The base of the party is fucking insane.
    If they want to make “fucking” an issue, I beg them to do it.
    Their party is a tree with rotted and decayed roots, just waiting to be pushed – and down it’ll go. And Obama is a stellar campaigner, who’ll be more than willing to provide that push.

    Sure, there’s a chance the nation is crazy and stupid enough to vote for Santorum, or Jeb, or DeMint, or Ryan. Or even Sarah.
    But that’s a chance I’m willing to take right now.

    They’ll all have to pick-up the mantle of the Teabaggers, and the rest of their crazy reactionay party members in the general election – while at the same time trying to appeal to the uninformed and stupid independents.
    We reality-base people will already know what they represent.

    And I can hardly wait to hear how their candidate explains that they want the rubbers for the truckers out of the gas station bathrooms, and out of the ubiquitous drug stores (which have sprouted up like mushrooms in the past few decades), and how THE GOVERNMENT will be denying access to “The Pill” to their wives and girlfriends – meaning they have to either buy that pill, or used rubbers, on the blackmarket. OR STOP FUCKING!

    And if they DO decide to fuck, and the woman gets pregnant – they’ll now have to find an illegal abortion provider on their lunch breaks.

    I want the Bubba’s out there, the ones who want to fuck their teenage babysitter, to understand that if they DO get lucky, and find themselves UNlucky a month or so later, how they’ll have no choice but to explain to ‘The Old Ball-and-chain’ how they dipped their dick in the sitter, Lil’ Cuz’n’ Missy, in the backseat of the cab of their pick-up while driving her home the night they came back from their anniversary at “Olive Garden.” And how now he’ll have to also have to pay to support Lil’ Cuz’n Missy’s child, as well as the brood he sired wid Da Missus.

    It’ll be Lil’ Bubba’s “Bobbit” time!!!

    So, yeah, explain to the nation that under their administration, they can’t fuck without consequences.
    Even the fucking stupidest, most ignorant, motherfucker wants to fuck someone.
    Even ‘somethings.’
    Men have fucked vacuum cleaners, and lost their dick’s to their rapidly-rotating lovers, in the process.

    And most people, if they DO fuck, they don’t want AIDS, other STD’s, or B-A-B-I-E-S.

    And if Conservatives can sell THAT shit – they deserve to win, and we deserve to lose.
    And hope no one they fucked doesn’t NOT have hers anytime soon.

    Or, will Bubba be forced to “Go Gay” to get off, and then have to explain the “santorum” residue in his tighty-whitie Hanes?

    So, yes please – make Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum your candidate!
    I beg you!!!

    • LoriK

      I’d love to watch this moron debate Obama.

      I suspect that debating Santorum would actually be a bit tricky for Obama, not because Santorum is smart or a good debater or a challenge for Obama, but because he so totally is not. Obama would have to walk the line between clearly demonstrating how ignorant Santorum is and being seen to beat him up so badly that it triggers the reflex a lot of people have to stick up for the underdog and the weakling.

      I think, unlike Mitt or Newt, it would be easy for Santorum to become the political equivalent of a Charlie Brown tree. (I mean really, just look at him.) I don’t think that even added to the %27 crazifaction folks that would be enough to win the election, but I’d rather not risk it.

      • LoriK

        I have no idea how the percent sign ended up in front of the number. That’ll teach me to make fun of someone else’s stupidity.

      • Like Biden when he debated Palin.

  • ploeg

    Just to help Nate out:

    How in the world did Mr. Santorum get 10 percent of the vote in Nevada — but 40 percent of the vote in Colorado, just three days later?

    Nevada had a primary. Colorado had a caucus. To vote in a caucus, you must show up at a certain date and time and stay there for at least half an hour. This greatly benefits candidates with a lot of movement “true believer” voters vs. candidates who have lukewarm support.

    Too bad for Santorum that most of the delegates are selected in primaries.

    • John

      Nevada had a caucus. Colorado also had a caucus.

      • rea

        Nevada has a lot of Mormons, so it’s the one place other than Utah where there are a lot of committed Romney voters–elsewhere Republicans regard him like a root canal: perhaps necessary, but unpleasant.

        • c u n d gulag

          More like a colonoscopy, I think.

        • Warren Terra

          Nate Silver addresses this in the linked post and says Mormons had little effect on the outcome in Nevada, according to exit polls: 2% from the 30% margin Mitt had over Rick was down to Mormons.

        • DrDick

          Actually, there are a lot of Mormons in most of the northern Rocky Mountain states, just not as many as in Utah and Nevada and Mittens could do well in all of them. His main competition here will be the libertarian/teabagger right, rather than the talibangelical right (who love them some Santorum right now). On the other hand, none of these states really have many people or delegates.

        • Murc

          To kick in my two cents here, I know a few people who are deeply immersed in Nevada politics (one of them has staffed a few of Dana Titus’ ill-fated runs for public office) and their predictions, and explanations, for Mittens kicking ass in the Sagebrush State have always hinged around around old-school politics rather than Mormon per se.

          To wit; Nevada is a machine state. Said machine has been in the tank for Mittens for a long time for various reasons. So Mitt does extraordinarily well there.

          The Mormon thing does have some bearing, but not in the way people think.

  • HMS Glowworm did 9/11

    Santorum exploding all over the Republican Party

    I like how whether you read that sentence as clean or dirty, it appeals to the same demographic.

  • jim

    I really am reminded of ’64, with Romney cast in the eastern, establishment, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, pragmatic record as governor role made famous by Nelson Rockefeller. Auditions for the “Goldwater” role are still going on. If no satisfactory actor is found, presumably we’ll get a different play.

    There are differences between ’12 and ’64. The most striking is that the charismatic, liberal President hasn’t been assassinated this time. More subtly, the conservative movement then was stronger and had a palpable sense of having been betrayed by the Eisenhower administration, which led to a stronger sense of insurgency. Today’s conservatives can’t really feel betrayed by Bush and so don’t have the same antipathy to the Republican Establishment. This is good for Romney.

    And ’64 was a close run thing (the nomination, that is, not the General Election). Rockefeller nearly beat Goldwater. The California primary determined the nominee and, had Happy’s pregnancy been better timed, might have turned out differently (there’s sometimes a butterfly’s wing effect in American politics).

    So Romney is still inevitable. Right up until the moment when he isn’t.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      This is a clever analysis..up to a point.

      Here’s the biggst difference between ’64 and today: The conservative movement IS the GOP and has been since at least the mid-1980s.

      The Teabaggers may talk about Wiillard as a “moderate” or even a “liberal,” but he bears about as much resemblance to Rockefeller or his dad as Obama does to an actual socialist.

      Today’s Tea Party vs. Republican Establishment battle may or may not actually be about something concrete. But it’s not a fight over the basic ideological orientation of the GOP.

      • efgoldman

        In 1964 (pre-CRA, pre-VRA) the Southern racist conservatives, and their states, were nominally Democrats. The GOBP was mostly Northern and coastal Western: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and defense hawks. Goldwater was a real insurgency, and surprised the hell out of the establishment GOBP. Of course, four years later Nixon created the Southern Strategy, which led to the devolution of the modern GOBP.

      • Manju

        In 1964 (pre-CRA, pre-VRA) the Southern racist conservatives,

        with the absence of a right-wing faction in the Democratic Party

        “Right wing” and “conservative” does not adequately describe the Segregationists’ ideological position, though I’m aware that this is the conventional label.

        The most sophisticated measure of ideology (for legislators) is DW Nominate. Nate Silver uses it and you can find Paul Krugman recommending the book below as “essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what’s happening to America”.

        DW Nominate reveals:

        “…there is one issue area that clearly did not fit the standard liberal-conservative pattern — civil rights for African-Americans. For much of the post-WWII era, the voting coalitions on racial issues were noticeably distinct from those on the other issues.”

        Source: “Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches”

        So this measure has segregates civil rights votes from the rest, which is very helpful because groups like the ADA end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy (the stronger the legislator is on civil rights, the more liberal he ranks).

        The results show that Segregationists were moderates who leaned to the liberal side.

        • Manju

          I’ll post the data sometime today.

        • Murc

          If someone was a segregationist, that person was a raging social conservative, full stop. They may have been economically liberal at the same time, but I fail to see how those two things are mutually exclusive.

          • DrDick

            Of course, but then you have a functioning brain, unlike Manju.

    • The conservative movement may be less powerful in American overall today, with the absence of a right-wing faction in the Democratic Party, but it is more powerful within the GOP itself.

  • Rarely Posts

    Personally, I’ve always hoped that Romney won the Republican primary because, if the economy tanks and a Republican wins, then Romney would be the best President. He’s the most moderate and stable-he’d be horrible, but predictably horrible and capable of some decent things occasionally; the others could do something so crazy that we currently can’t even conceive of it. Having said that . . .

    In some ways, I can’t help but root for Santorum because he better represents the majority base of the Republican party (and I generally think that that parties should get representatives of their actual base, not their elite controllers). Driven by bigotry, he represents their intense activists. Culturally conservative, he represents the disengaged, cynical middle-class and blue collar Republican voter who reliably shows up at the polls. In contrast, Romney represents the small minority of the super-wealthy, anti-labor rentiers who actually run the Republicans but make up a small number of voters.

    • Malaclypse

      because, if the economy tanks and a Republican wins, then Romney would be the best President.

      Why? Romney would care about one thing while governing – not facing a primary challenge. You thing Romney will stand up to Eric Cantor? Based on what – his principles?

      • DrDick

        Plus his economic policies are as regressive and potentially destructive as any of the others. The only area where Romney is “moderate” is on social issues.

      • Murc

        Speaking only for myself, I’ve always thought that a hypothetical President Romney would be (marginally) better than, say, Bachmann or Santorum precisely because of his lack of principles and investment in the status quo.

        Mitt is committed to the ongoing conservative con game, and for that thing to keep rolling there needs to be a system in place for it vampire off of. A number of his primary rivals have NOT had this investment; they’re true believers. They’d be willing to do shit like unilaterally nuke other countries and start doing Andrew Jackson style shit at home. They’d be ENTHUSIASTIC about it. Mitt would shy back.

        • Rarely Posts

          Exactly this. Romney would be horrible, but I don’t think his foreign policy would be psychotic. Indeed, I suspect he’d be more rational than Bush II, whereas I suspect the others may be LESS rational than Bush II.

          Second, on the economy, he’d actually want the economy to function, and he’s smart enough to know that some of the Republican talking points would be disastrous for the economy. He’s not going to shift us to the gold standard. His tax proposal is also the least regressive of all of them (though still plenty regressive):


          Obviously, Romney would be horrible (it’s hard to read my original comment and take it as an impassioned endorsement). And, he’d be unlikely to stand up to the crazy in the Republican party. But, a President’s basic inclinations and intelligence matter because: (1) he controls the executive branch and (2) he helps set the agenda. Everything I’ve read suggests that Romney is a rational corporatist who’s engaging in the big con, whereas the others are irrational crazies.

          Also, Romney’s career in Massachusetts shows that he’s fine with being a moderate if that’s what politics requires. Now, obviously he’s not going to be a moderate on the national stage, but national politics do sometimes require moderation. I’ve seen no evidence that any of the others have even the capability of being moderate regardless of where the politics lie.

          Third and finally, I disagree with this: “Romney would care about one thing while governing – not facing a primary challenge.” Romney is going to care about two things — not facing a SERIOUS primary challenge AND winning reelection in the general. And, the Republican party machine is going to do its best to discourage a primary challenge. At the Presidential level, the party (and the club for growth, etc.) is going to do a lot to discourage a primary to purge moderation, even though the elites encourage it to purge Representatives and occasional Senators (particularly when they come from red-districts, states).

          • c u n d gulag

            You bring up some good points.

            But I’m not convinced that Mitt wouldn’t be forced to bow down to the reactionary forces that are now apparently speaking for the majority of the Republican’s base voters.

            He may have to go all 13th Century on the US, just to prove his Conservative bona fides.

            And a lot will be determined by the Congress. A Republican House and Senate will do a lot to drag Mitt back to the 13th Century – whether he wants to go or not.

            Either, or both, houses controlled by Democrats will force him to the center.

            The President may try to set an agenda, but as we saw with President Obama, the House and/or Senate, can be the determining factor in what happens to that agenda.

            Though I don’t doubt for a second that the Whoreporatist Red Dog Democrats will jump aboard right away – helping to get the agenda passed.
            After all, they can’t help themselves.

          • DrDick

            I think you overestimate the intelligence or understanding of both Mitt and the GOP establishment. I think they are fully capable of pursuing policies that will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs owing to ignorance and stupidity, as well as pervasive ideological rigidity on economic issues. I do not think Mittens is nearly as flexible there as he is on the social issues.

        • Incontinentia Buttocks

          But I think one of lessons of the GHW Bush presidency for those just committed to the con game is that you need to engage in more active care and feeding of the crazies if you hope to get reelected. Nearly all the pressures on a President Romney will be to ramp up the crazy.

          • DrDick

            Good point. That has become much clearer in this election cycle.

      • You thing Romney will stand up to Eric Cantor? Based on what – his principles?

        Because it would be in his political interest to do so.

        He cannot put together a governing coalition with the Teabaggers, because they don’t want to govern, just blow things up. As we saw with the passage of the Massachusetts Health Reform Plan, Romney doesn’t want to just blow things up. He wants to be a conventionally-successful president

        President Romney would stand up to Eric Cantor because that’s how he’d bring the right 1/2 -2/3 of the Democratic caucus into his governing coalition. He’d be a Republicans second term of Bill Clinton.

  • jon

    Santorum is so emotionally stunted that he’ll fold up like a wet paper bag when Obama’s steam roller gets going. More than that, he is the embodiement of the dweeby kid who lost the competition to be hall monitor, and has never given up that dream, even though his best memory of middle school is the swirlies he got every week. When the decision finally comes down to who you’d rather have a beer with, and who’d you rather have as your daddy, little Ricky simply won’t figure.

  • When Santorum loses Pennsylvania again in November, I shall turn to a Republican and scream, “What did you think was going to happen!?!? He’s Rick Freakin’ Santorum!” (I would assume we’re in a public area, where profanity would be frown upon.)

    The only interesting thing to come out of that outcome is how Mitt Romney reacts to this. Maybe a complete collapse of faith questioning what kind of God would do this to two generations of Romney men.

  • Manju

    Don’t forget about those known unknowns. That’s why Hillary once reminded us of Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. You never know. Maybe there really is a Whitey tape. So, what’s Romney’s?

    Maybe the 3M stashed away in a Swiss bank account until ’10. He did not report this on disclosure forms and hasn’t released his ’09 returns. The US government fined Romney’s bank, UBS, for helping Americans evade taxes via their offshore accounts.


    If true, will this charge cause Romney to Spiro down? Tax evasion is a fairly solid disqualifier. Timothy Geithner takes the edge off no doubt, but we have Newt on our side. He’s very good at attacking enemies for what friends do.

    When the dust settles, Santorum may very well be the cleanest option.

    • c u n d gulag

      What’s the code, Kenneth?

      Is there even a code here?

      Or, is this part of some Manju Manifesto you wrote, badly translated from the original Manchu or Mandarin, Manju?

      Your English is barely understandable on your best days. I don’t think you can speak or write any other languages, but at least that would be an excuse.

      Oh, wait!
      I think I got it!
      Is that Gabby Johnson’s ‘authentic frontier gibberish’ speech in Manjuese?

      Ok, whoever borrowed my Gibberish/English – English/Gibberish dictionary, please return it to me pronto!

      Besides, Sarah Palin’s about due to pop-up sooner or later.

      • Manju

        What’s the code, Kenneth?


        • c u n d gulag

          I know that.

          But not in your case, Lil’ Buddy!

It is main inner container footer text