View Full Version : GOP Nominee
The deficit Bush left was structural - all of the increase since then has been cyclical.
Not entirely true, things such as the stimulus bill created deficit. That said, Obama's costs are child's play compared to Bush II, as the below graphic illustrates. Note that they're probably undervaluing the cost of the Iraq war by a factor of 2.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/debtchangesunderbushobama.jpg
PanzerJaeger
01-31-2012, 05:47
That's splitting hairs.
Not really. Karl Rove is not the head of a Mitt Romney SuperPAC. Even if Romney wins the nomination, he will not be the head of a Romney SuperPAC.
Centurion1
01-31-2012, 06:33
(not to be confused with members of the military, who overwhelmingly support RON PAUL). .
Just because the man has the most donations does not mean he has the majority of the military's support.
Centurion1
01-31-2012, 06:33
Not really. Karl Rove is not the head of a Mitt Romney SuperPAC. Even if Romney wins the nomination, he will not be the head of a Romney SuperPAC.
He refuses to accept anything that denounces his god and savior paul so why even bother pj
He refuses to accept anything that denounces his god and savior paul so why even bother pj
Centurion why do you dislike Ron Paul so much?
Centurion why do you dislike Ron Paul so much?
Ron Paul to me is an interesting conundrum.
I have never seen a politician that is such a mix of "wow this guy is really honest about what he is saying" and "wow I think this guy is a couple cards short of a full deck"
It's like a common sense and lunacy smoothy.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-31-2012, 17:20
Integrity isn't admirable when it comes at the price of a simplistic world view.
edit:Whether it's still integrity in that case is debatable...
A somewhat chilling analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMzuogkk7XU
Simplistic or simply inconvenient? What a lot of people call a "complex system" I would call bloated, ineffective, and in need of simplicity.
Simplicity is good. In moderation.
So, would you say that the country is need of some moderated simplicity? Or is the country alright?
One of the reasons Ron Paul is such a good choice for office is that he has a pretty solid understanding of what a president is supposed to do. Congress is, once again, the great big fat equalizer. Do you honestly think he could get rid of the IRS or enforce the gold standard on their watch? Hell no. Could he push them in a new and cheaper direction after a long drawn-out partisan slug-fest? Probably.
My problem with Ron Paul is that instead of a smaller government he wants a weak and feeble government. He also promotes isolationism which is just a no-go in the 21st century. He has many good ideas as well, but they're mixed with too much crazy for my comfort level.
ICantSpellDawg
02-01-2012, 01:05
A somewhat chilling analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMzuogkk7XU
Look at what Matthews has for Romney, he hates him with a passion and shows it every minute of every day on his program. It is bizarre. I love listening to Matthews just dis-assemble. The leg tingling for Obama has gone to his brain. I remember his dis-discombobulation when Pat Toomey was slaughtering Specter for the Sentate and then slaughtering Sestak. I view Chris Matthews as a weather vane. When he's losing it, he's losing.
MSNBC only likes a Republican that doesn't have a chance in hell. When they are dangerous, MSNBC's gloves are off. Romney is dangerous because he represents a break from the circus. A sober man with moderate politics who is as sharp as a tack. If you think he is a Bob Dole, a John McCain, a John Kerry; remind yourself - he's also good looking, has private sector acumen, and looks the part - those things go quite a bit further than you might like to admit. Oh, and I remember watching Obama against Clinton - he is an excellent speaker, but a pathetic debater.
Republicans will most likely win this election in one way or another; Either the economy gets better and we are all better off with a second Obama term, or the economy does what we all believe it will do over the next 10 months and stagnates - and then we will have a new President.
I like our chances
It boggles my mind that people think we are actually SAFER because we go stir up hornets' nests...
When we get hit (like we did on 9/11) we should hit back. We should hit back so hard, with such disproportionate fury as to put the fear of God into anyone who has or is planning to attack us. Seeing us finally handle Osama for instance brought me a great deal of satisfaction. I just hope that before he got that bullet in his head he knew for sure that it was an American pulling that trigger. Nobody escapes our vengeance. In a way it is a proactive lesson for others not to mess with Uncle Sam under any circumstances. It's a reminder that is best administered via preemptive measures as much as possible.
A somewhat chilling analysis:
Romney had everything to gain by "killing Gingrich" before Florida. If it is all over after Florida (or February or whenever), as I would guess, Gingrich does not have anything to gain by revenge attacks. I guess he wants to continue playing the "wise old man" and his SC blip no doubt helped him in that regard. But no one likes a sore loser.
I have not seen Romney's attack adds on Gingrich, but the latter certainly gave him enough ammunition. I hope when he comes to face Obama, Romney can avoid repeating some of the "big lie" tactics of recent Presidential campaigns - the swift boat adds against Kerry in particular were appalling. The Obama muslim/not American stuff is no better, but IIRC came out more in the aftermath of the campaign than at the time. I wonder how electorally successful such dirty fighting is? In the UK, there's a presumption that positive campaigning wins more support among the crucial undecideds and marginal voters (negative campaigns maybe just pander to the base that would vote for you anyway). Romney looks about the best placed to fight for those swing votes out of the Republican candidates and so might want to campaign positively, but I wonder he'll end up playing good cop while the super-PACs etc play bad cop and fund the nasty stuff.
a completely inoffensive name
02-01-2012, 03:06
When we get hit (like we did on 9/11) we should hit back. We should hit back so hard, with such disproportionate fury as to put the fear of God into anyone who has or is planning to attack us. Seeing us finally handle Osama for instance brought me a great deal of satisfaction. I just hope that before he got that bullet in his head he knew for sure that it was an American pulling that trigger. Nobody escapes our vengeance. In a way it is a proactive lesson for others not to mess with Uncle Sam under any circumstances. It's a reminder that is best administered via preemptive measures as much as possible.This attitude is disgusting. You want to put the fear of god in our enemies? Then we should have nuked every city in Afghanistan and we should have nuked the city OBL was in. Anything else is just wasted blood and chest pounding.Our foreign policy will kill us and people still think we can control the world.
This attitude is disgusting.
Disgusting how exactly?
You want to put the fear of god in our enemies? Then we should have nuked every city in Afghanistan and we should have nuked the city OBL was in.
A spirited approach but not very wise in the grand scheme of things.
Anything else is just wasted blood and chest pounding.Our foreign policy will kill us and people still think we can control the world.
Saddam and Osama would disagree with you.
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 04:04
Well, it looks like the GOP is back on track to at least have a shot at victory in November. Romney took a 10 point deficit coming out of South Carolina and turned it into a 15 point victory in 10 days. Not bad.
More importantly, Romney did what I was looking for him to do after South Carolina and what he has done throughout his career. The campaign made a mistake after New Hampshire and took the race directly to Obama while there were still viable contenders in the race. It seemed reasonable after the 'victory' in Iowa and the landslide in New Hampshire, but it was a miscalculation. Romney correctly identified both that strategic mistake and the tactical errors he made in South Carolina (tax issue, debate performances, etc.) and moved quickly, methodically, and convincingly to address them. Such a turnaround was characteristic of Romney's career in the private sector, and his ability to apply the same strengths to his campaign bodes well for him in the general.
Newt Gingrich showed himself to be exactly what I thought he was coming out of South Carolina - a one trick pony. He could not score a big moment in the debates, and simply could not adapt.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-01-2012, 04:09
Simplistic or simply inconvenient? What a lot of people call a "complex system" I would call bloated, ineffective, and in need of simplicity.
He decides things based on simple rules. For example if you watch him in the foreign policy debates is just him replying to detailed questions with "of course not, we should stay at home". Even if you agree with him there isn't much to respect--it's easy to be consistent when you decide based on a simple ideology.
Another thing I remembered from watching the debates--his analogies show that he doesn't actually understand the issues.
Paul plans to announce his candidacy Friday in New Hampshire, two sources told Fox News. Ahead of that announcement, he suggested in a radio interview Tuesday that the U.S. government could have worked with Pakistan to secure Usama bin Laden's capture instead of unilaterally entering the country and killing him -- despite concerns that the Pakistanis could have tipped him off.
"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.
The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.
"What if he had been in a hotel in London?" Paul said on Newsradio 1040 WHO. "So would we have sent the ... helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out? No, you don't want to do that."
Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government.
"They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us," Paul said, suggesting the same formula should have applied to bin Laden.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1l60hHCy5
ICantSpellDawg
02-01-2012, 04:09
I can't find any recent polls from Nevada.
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 06:56
According to Google's cool new Elections (http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results) site, Romney won 46.4% of the vote while Gingrich's and Santorum's combined total is 45.3%.
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 07:05
Ugh.. not looking for Paul. Maybe he'll finally just go with the third party option.
Look for him to do considerably better in the smaller caucus states where organization and intensity count for a lot more.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-01-2012, 07:18
Well, yeah. But come on dude you're walking into the biggest logical fallacy in this entire thread. Why do they hate us? Why did they attack us? If we hadn't been meddling in the middle east FOREVER they'd never hate us. Are you denying that we started this? You have to protect your people. Terrorism is not okay. So the answer is to make our nation bankrupt to rebuild them in our image? How is that in any way more practical than bombing the hell out of them and leaving? Or, better yet, not meddling in the first place so they don't blow us up.
I mean, honestly. Do you think they hate us on principle? No. We've been meddling forever, and thanks to it we're a not-entirely-undeserving target for the ire of all kinds of extremists all over the world. Its god-damned ridiculous. Saying we should continue with the same meddling policies is absolutely ridiculous. It's like a petulant child refusing to admit they were wrong.
Is there any "meddling" we've done that you think we were right to do that would have been sufficient for them to hate us?
To Sasaki: Paul's not perfect, but he has a platform. He has plans. He has opinions and he has POLITICAL VIEWS. The other candidates do not have these.
But even if the other candidates just follow the party line they will be better than Paul with his views. A simplistic ideology is a dangerous one.
They have pre-packaged opinions and sound bytes. Gingrich and Romney are both notorious flip-floppers, although admittedly Gingrich's list of "Bad qualities" is so long that it makes Romney look like a golden child. How the hell is someone who's been in trouble for actual, real ethical violations running for president? And how is he ahead of somebody who's consistent and honest?
I've completely written off Gingrich as either an attention whore or a sock puppet. Either one is unacceptable. Romney I'm not entirely sure about--for one thing its impossible to tell exactly where he stands on what issues. Why the hell would you vote for someone who's views are not clear and obvious? Because the party says he's your guy? I just don't understand. When did it become a requirement, in the public's eye, that politicians be dishonest and perplexing? This is a really, really bad trend.
Politicians are dishonest because we have a two party system. I like the two party system so I don't mind. Each party is a patchwork of groups that don't necessarily fit well together...in fact I would say any smart person will dislike many things about both parties. But if they are running for office they will appeal to their party. This leads to lots of contradictions over time as they act on their own beliefs sometimes and appeal to the people at other times.
But with a parliamentary kind of system we would just have more people like Ron Paul who are honest and straightforward because they strictly follow a simplistic ideology. That would be terrible.
In the end you vote based on what you figure the guy is going to do in office, not on what he talks about on the campaign trail.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-01-2012, 07:44
I think we were right to intervene in WWII--we were attacked first, after all, by the Japanese. The Germans declared war on us in support of the Japanese, so intervention in Europe was a clear-cut case of proving that we aren't to be trifled with. On this I think we agree: A powerful nation makes enemies and has to decisively put them down when it comes to blows. On this same line of thought I think we were right to invade Afghanistan, and I think we were right to kill Osama (because the Pakistanis are corrupt as hell, and he almost certainly would have been tipped off by them if we hadn't gone in ourselves).
Self Defense is a inalienable right. Since a nation is a group of people, they have the right to respond with force to threats. What I'm opposed to is bass-ackwards way we deal with indirect threats. We're enlightened enough to handle the responsibility of being a global power without being imperialistic, but instead we choose the imperialistic route every time. Our actions from Panama to Iran to Afghanistan, as regards bad regimes and our tendancy to create them, have left a long trail of dead bodies and bad sentiments. Choosing to be more reserved and disciplined in our approach to the world would be a very smart thing right about now.
I don't know enough history to say what cold war policy would have been better...
But basically I'm skeptical of the idea that we should base our actions on whether we'll be hated for them or not.
As to the rest, I simply disagree with you. The two-party system is a lie, in my view, since hardly anybody is effectively represented by the two parties. Choosing the golden mean is not always the best option. A multi-party system might make more mistakes, might be less organized, but at least everyone would be able to look at congress and say "There's a guy in there who is fighting for my political beliefs."
But individuals aren't supposed to be represented. Half of Ohio is represented by one Senator, so obviously there's not many people who can say they agree with him on most things. Instead of just being content that their pet cause is being fought for people have to rank all the things they care about and decide who on the whole they want to vote for. It's much better.
Libertarians are marginalized because they don't have the money to put the word out and compete with ten-million-dollar ad blitzes. It's absolute bogus.
Libertarianism isn't marginalized. Both parties have a pretty strong libertarian streak. They may disagree about assault weapons or something but it's still a fringe issue. It's only the radical libertarians that are marginalized, and rightly so. They are marginalized along with the radical environmentalists and feminists and communists and "pirate party" people...
I mean, imagine congress in deadlock, with the tipping point going to the minority party who's only issue is "making marijuana use a capital offense".
Also, re your ad blitzes comment. Don't be too hasty to think that they only reason more people don't agree with you is because the wool is being pulled over their eyes...that's too tempting a trap...maybe they just sincerely disagree.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-01-2012, 08:20
How about simply treating other nations how we would like to be treated? Recognizing that beyond our borders lay actual people with actual lives and actual interests that we should not just meddle with at will.
How familiar are you with our history of meddling? Are you aware of the Iran-Contra affair? The toppling of the Iranian regime? Our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? Our involvement in the south american drug trade? Our assasination of legitimately elected South American leaders? These are not sound bytes, these are historical facts. Only relatively recently have most people come to terms with them instead of outright declaring you a liar when you bring it up. Hell, we can go as far back as gunboat diplomacy for examples of selfish and antagonizing behavior--we built the Panama canal against the objections of the actual people living there, that's where the term "Gunboat Diplomacy" comes from. We also forced Japan to trade with us at gun point. China too, but the UK had a large hand in that one.
Imperialism is bad because eventually someone's going to punch you in the face for being a bully. Do you disagree?
With all of these kinds of things the initial bit I heard about it is rabidly negative, and then when I learn a bit more I see that much of what I was initially told was wrong.
We supported the mujahideen to counter the soviets, yes? I saw some Tom Hanks movie. But you would have to go pretty in depth before you could be confident on whether it was a bad idea or not, or whether it was a good idea bad execution, or whether that made it a bad idea because you can't count on good execution, etc...that goes for most of that stuff. I read a book on the space race a couple months back and it's shocking how off the mark the general idea about it is.
I disagree. Case in point would be that so many people just don't care enough to vote. Case in point-er would be the pathetic level of involvement and interest people have in their state or local government. Nobody trusts these guys to actually represent their interests.
What? So, basically, everyone who deosn't toe the party line doesn't deserve to have a party? There is Libertarian sentiment on both sides. There are also things I abhore and would never, ever, in a life-time support on both parties. What am I supposed to do? Vote for a third party that stands no chance? Put my faith in a politician who MIGHT put some attention towards causes I consider the top priority?
If our system is so good, explain this to me: Functionally, what is the difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party? Can you even say? Can you even tell what the platforms are? Certainly the Republicans can't stand for fiscal responsibility... they've been the biggest spenders since Reagan. Yet they still claim it as part of their platform. Is this okay to you?
The end result of our system are two parties that BOTH spend tons of money and are BOTH corrupt, and the people keep arguing over dumb-ass social issues that have no bearing on the governance of a nation. The biggest differences between the two parties should not be "Oh, well, one is in support of Abortion and one isn't." but that's really the most visible one.
You don't like people just caring about dumb social issues? What do you think they would vote for in a multi party system? Heck, can't you imagine us having a pro-piracy party sponsored by google and an anti-piracy one sponsored by hollywood and the recording industry? Would that be better?
You're just being cynical when you say there's no difference between the two parties.
We've had this system for over 200 years, how has everything turned out so well? Life is pretty great here you have to admit.
a completely inoffensive name
02-01-2012, 09:15
Disgusting how exactly?
Because imo, it shows how little we have learned from out mistakes.
A spirited approach but not very wise in the grand scheme of things.
Neither are unwinnable wars that drain resources and give us hostile sharia law driven "democracies".
Saddam and Osama would disagree with you.
Non sequitor? Because I can't understand how someone could think that our ability to kill two men who are only representatives of a widespread ideology proves that we have everything under control.
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 11:27
Tell me why Romney's so great.
He is a very competent administrator of large, multilayered organizations; you know, like the federal government. Is there any evidence that Paul has the same leadership qualities?
I really like Paul, and I sincerely hope he doesn't leave the GOP. As Reagan said, libertarianism is the soul of the party. I hope that Paul makes it to the convention with enough delegates (and not Gingrich) to make some much needed changes to the party platform.
However, I do not want to elect another ideological warrior who cannot deal with the complexity of our system. That has really been our problem for the last twelve years. Both Bush and Obama ran and won on ideology, but their failings were in management. Bush couldn't manage the wars, the spending, or even his GOP majority in congress. Obama badly mismanaged his stimulus, the health care bill, and his own Democratic majority. Management is a skill, one that Americans used to value more than they do today.
It's not enough to have the president out there as a cheerleader while the day to day operations of the country are delegated to cabinet secretaries or czars. Responsibility gets lost in the hierarchy. Presidents used to be much more involved in actually running the nation as opposed to championing causes. As Truman's desk plate said, 'The Buck Stops Here'. Effective administrators have an intimate understanding of the organization at all levels, and most ideologues just aren't that technocratic - it's hard to hold hard ideological positions in the face of organizational realities.
People on the political left and right are calling for radical change, and changes are definitely needed. However, I've come to the conclusion that the real radical change America needs is sound management. Every major move the government has made in the last twelve years seems, in hindsight, to have been flailing and reactionary. If we elect a political moderate who happens to be a very strong leader with the ability to see not just where the government is now but where it needs to be, he may just make the government work better - both in cost and effectiveness - which would make both conservatives and liberals happy.
There's your argument for Romney - he may not end the Fed and dismantle the welfare state, but he may make it work better.
CountArach
02-01-2012, 12:06
People on the political left and right are calling for radical change, and changes are definitely needed. However, I've come to the conclusion that the real radical change America needs is sound management. Every major move the government has made in the last twelve years seems, in hindsight, to have been flailing and reactionary. If we elect a political moderate who happens to be a very strong leader with the ability to see not just where the government is now but where it needs to be, he may just make the government work better - both in cost and effectiveness - which would make both conservatives and liberals happy.
The problem with this remarkably insightful theory is that the idea of where a govenment needs to be is founded in some ideology of some description. The biggest problem with getting such a person elected (a competent administrator who is not ideologically driven to the same extent as others) is the two party system - neither party is going to elect someone who is competent but doesn't play to their base. The dichotomy of conservative-progressive is just too deeply rooted in the American political system to make "competent" an option, unless someone is both ideological and competent, in which case they will still iritate their opposition.
I disagree that Romney is the competant man that America needs, because no one gets as far as he has in politics without being an ideologue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-01-2012, 12:16
That's a good argument. A very good argument, actually. Its an argument I want to believe, because it is reassuring and it makes sense. But what is his platform? Obviously he's a good manager or he'd never have made his fortune. I certainly do not begrudge him his money, but I am suspicious of his motives. What can you tell me about what will happen if he gets elected? What exactly will you hold him accountable for trying to accomplish?
How's "The economy recovers, the debt goes down, I get out without a scandal" for a platform?
Or, who cares about a "platform" really? People who are fundamentally driven by wanting to see their ideology pushed forward, which (as PJ said) isn't really what America needs for the next four years.
Because imo, it shows how little we have learned from out mistakes.
And what exactly is it that we have missed?
Neither are unwinnable wars that drain resources and give us hostile sharia law driven "democracies".
Oh, the wars are very much winnable. As for sharia-driven "democracies", they don't have to like us, they just need to understand that they should never cross us. I believe they have developed that understanding.
Non sequitor? Because I can't understand how someone could think that our ability to kill two men who are only representatives of a widespread ideology proves that we have everything under control.
It's not our ability to kill two men, it's our ability to get the two very specific men who were in deep underground with large organizations sheltering them and supporting them.
When we get hit (like we did on 9/11) we should hit back. We should hit back so hard, with such disproportionate fury as to put the fear of God into anyone who has or is planning to attack us. Seeing us finally handle Osama for instance brought me a great deal of satisfaction. I just hope that before he got that bullet in his head he knew for sure that it was an American pulling that trigger. Nobody escapes our vengeance. In a way it is a proactive lesson for others not to mess with Uncle Sam under any circumstances. It's a reminder that is best administered via preemptive measures as much as possible.
I'm reminded of this article in The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-must-retaliate-with-blind-rage-vs-we-must-retal,11537/) 9/11 issue:
WE MUST RETALIATE WITH BLIND RAGE vs. WE MUST RETALIATE WITH MEASURED, FOCUSED RAGE
"... And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you."
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 16:10
That's a good argument. A very good argument, actually. Its an argument I want to believe, because it is reassuring and it makes sense. But what is his platform? Obviously he's a good manager or he'd never have made his fortune. I certainly do not begrudge him his money, but I am suspicious of his motives. What can you tell me about what will happen if he gets elected? What exactly will you hold him accountable for trying to accomplish?
You know how every president and aspiring president pledges to go through the federal budget line by line? I could see Romney actually doing something like that. Is competence in government not a goal in and of itself? Is efficient, focused, and disciplined governance in America not an accomplishment? Romney is running on restoring American prosperity, and that is how he will be judged if he gets elected.
Everyone wants a transformational leader, but 'transformational' has too often translated into 'rigidly ideological'. Bush used 9/11 to rigidly pursued a neoconservative agenda in the Middle East planned years before despite clear evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. Obama used the economic crisis to rigidly pursue a liberal socialized healthcare scheme planned years before despite the economy crumbling around him and the completely atrocious nature of the final bill that he signed. It might be nice to have a president that confronts America's issues based on importance, not an ideological agenda years in the making.
As I said much earlier in this thread, I see Romney as a Nixon-like figure. What was Nixon's singular, defining goal? Nothing in particular. He ran on restoring American prosperity during a period of national upheaval and apprehension. What was his transformational policy achievement while in office? Nothing. But he did govern the nation well enough to win the third largest landslide in American history. Nixon was a moderate, center-right politician. More defining, though, was his solutions-oriented pragmatism.
In many ways, Nixon was the last of the post-war presidents who ran on promised and delivered leadership instead of ideology. Truman, Ike, Kennedy, and Nixon (LBJ being an obvious outlier) - none of these presidents were transformational, none of them promised huge new entitlements or the destruction of existing ones, but they all presided over steady, responsible governments in much tougher times than we are in now. Ideology is a luxury of a nation in ascent. Lemur's thread notwithstanding, American ascension has stalled and the nation is facing more serious problems than have been encountered in generations.
I've been an ideological warrior for years on this forum and in my real life through my political activities. Reagan's 'A Time for Choosing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)' will always be the quintessence of my belief system. However, I'm starting to believe that it may be time to return to centrism, pragmatism, and proven leadership as the preferred presidential model.
The problem with this remarkably insightful theory is that the idea of where a government needs to be is founded in some ideology of some description.
Well, yes and no. Despite the deep divisions in the American political landscape, our actual differences are fairly minimal. The vast majority of people do not want a communist system, nor do they want some kind of Randian dissolution of basic government functions and regulation. The vast majority do want a market-based economy and a government that emphasizes personal liberty, equity, and prosperity. We simply have slightly different ideas of what that entails.
But suppose a Mitt Romney makes it into office, looks at America's revenue problem and economic situation and decides to raise personal income taxes and cut the corporate rate? What if he looks at America's education situation and decides to take on the teacher's unions while at the same time funding more technology in the classroom? What if he decides to keep some of the more beneficial and popular aspects of Obamacare, but transfer the administration to the states, eliminate the individual mandate, and implement market-driven mechanisms. Would he be conservative or liberal, big government or small?
Those are just random examples off the top of my head that are probably not workable, but my point is that there is room for solutions-driven decision-making in our shared vision for the future. These days presidents come at problems with half the possible options to address them already crossed off the list for ideological reasons. It doesn't have to be that way.
The biggest problem with getting such a person elected (a competent administrator who is not ideologically driven to the same extent as others) is the two party system - neither party is going to elect someone who is competent but doesn't play to their base. The dichotomy of conservative-progressive is just too deeply rooted in the American political system to make "competent" an option, unless someone is both ideological and competent, in which case they will still iritate their opposition.
True, but I feel like more and more Americans are, at least subconsciously, realizing the folly of this system - as is evidenced by the rapid growth in independents and the decline in party membership around the country. Independents don't care about ideological litmus tests, they care about results. If a Romney-type character could get through one of the primaries and then speak directly to them, s/he could build a solid coalition and change the political landscape.
I disagree that Romney is the competant man that America needs, because no one gets as far as he has in politics without being an ideologue.
Look how much time, money, and organization Romney has put into this race only to have the GOP cycle through a cast of circus clowns trying to find an alternative. They aren't stupid. They know, deep down, he is not one of them, and they are right. Romney will say and do what he has to in order to get through the primary season. Expect a much different candidate after he secures the nom.
Expect a much different candidate after he secures the nom...
And therein lies the problem: where is the real Romney? Or rather, which Romney is the real one? What does the real Romney stand for?
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 16:30
And therein lies the problem: where is the real Romney? Or rather, which Romney is the real one? What does the real Romney stand for?
Success, improvement, administrative efficiency - those have been the enduring hallmarks of the man's career, not hollow ideological talking points. And it is not as if Romney is unique in this. What was GWB's real position on small government conservatism? Candidates promise conviction to all sorts of principles that they have no intention of governing on. The fact that Romney is only barely paying lip service to the (far more extreme than years before) movement conservative GOP base is refreshing. These are the people that propelled the likes of Herman Cain to prominence and would rather go down with Newt than win with Romney. They're not thinking straight this cycle, as happens every once in a while with each side's base.
Success, improvement, administrative efficiency - those have been the enduring hallmarks of the man's career, not hollow ideological talking points. And it is not as if Romney is unique in this. What was GWB's real position on small government conservatism? Candidates promise conviction to all sorts of principles that they have no intention of governing on. The fact that Romney is only barely paying lip service to the (far more extreme than years before) movement conservative GOP base is refreshing. These are the people that propelled the likes of Herman Cain to prominence and would rather go down with Newt than win with Romney. They're not thinking straight this cycle, as happens every once in a while with each side's base.
My problem with Romney is not that he's not pandering to the base but rather that the views that he *is* expressing cannot be trusted. If he is willing to tell a bunch of lies to get the nomination, what's there to stop him to tell even more lies to get the presidency? Sure, he has the acumen to execute his vision if he gets into the White House, but so far I have no idea what that vision might be.
PanzerJaeger
02-01-2012, 16:45
My problem with Romney is not that he's not pandering to the base but rather that the views that he *is* expressing cannot be trusted. If he is willing to tell a bunch of lies to get the nomination, what's there to stop him to tell even more lies to get the presidency? Sure, he has the acumen to execute his vision if he gets into the White House, but so far I have no idea what that vision might be.
The truth is that every candidate 'lies' during the election process. Issues that are ginned up as vitally important during the primary process and even the general election very rarely become governing priorities.
The truth is that every candidate 'lies' during the election process...
Some do more than others.
The fact that Romney is only barely paying lip service to the (far more extreme than years before) movement conservative GOP base is refreshing. These are the people that propelled the likes of Herman Cain to prominence and would rather go down with Newt than win with Romney.
Agreed on all points; Romney will be a better candidate than the rest of the GOP field, and he would make a better administrator of the executive branch.
My only worry is what happens to the GOP if Romney loses. If a relative moderate loses to Obama, the GOP base can tell itself that the reason they lost is because they didn't put forward a "real" conservative, and the entrenchment and echo chamber (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html) can grow stronger. For the health of the Republican party, I kinda wish they would field a fire-breathing true-red capital-c Conervative, just to cleanse the system. Have a Goldwater moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater). Let the radicals have their time in the sun, give them enough rope, etcetera. But if the mainstream, moderate candidate loses, I expect the conservative media complex to go into full Dolchstoß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend)mode.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-01-2012, 17:59
@GelCube: I understand you, but PJ said what I was trying to say...most americans agree on the basics. The candidates pay lip service to the radicals but are much less radical themselves. The parties themselves change over time. CA said something about "only ideologues can succeed" but the opposite is true...true ideologues have it tough, even when they are as inoffensive as Paul.
PJ makes a good argument for Romney...
Well, looks like the Dolchstoss has already begun (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/31/newt-battles-mush-from-the-wim/0), as I predicted. Sigh.
[I]f Romney is nominated the hard-edged bashing of Gingrich will vanish when the opponent becomes President Obama. Why? Because, Romney and the Establishment GOP will run the updated version of the Dewey-Ford mortgage driven campaign. After all. A presidential campaign, to quote Romney, isn't talk radio. One can't attack Barack Obama in this fashion. One can't say the reason this presidency is an utter failure is because of an Alinsky-ite, far left philosophy. Nooooooooo. One must say simply and politely that Obama is, to quote Romney directly, just "over his head." [...]
The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment.
Or, as the saying might go after all these years: still more mush from the wimps.In other words, by choosing Romney as the Republican candidate, the GOP establishment is throwing the election and betraying everything that matters, because Romney will not say sufficiently mean things about Obama. Or something like that.
If the economic growth and specifically job creation maintains its current momentum there would be little either Romney or Gingrich can say or do to unseat Obama.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-02-2012, 00:05
Why? And how do you suggest that the economy recover and the debt be reduced? These things aren't magical, they have to come from somewhere.
Come on, this is supposed to be really easy. What are Romney's positions?
For the record, I really do want to be proven wrong here. I'm not arguing to argue, I'm arguing because what I see does not make any sense. I see intelligent people supporting a guy who they know very little about. That bothers the hell out of me.
Trim the budget, cut entitlements, reform healthcare, raise taxes.
Jobs' a good'n, as we say here.
Fixing the American defecit isn't harder than fixing the British one, most of the problems are just institutional bloat anyway.
...raise taxes...
You do realize that this is anathema for any republican would-be nominee....
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-02-2012, 01:04
You do realize that this is anathema for any republican would-be nominee....
So?
Spending cuts won't cover the short fall. US taxes have been falling for decades, now they need to rise - not by much, if Rommey paid 20% on his earnings instead of 15% that would be enough.
So?
Spending cuts won't cover the short fall. US taxes have been falling for decades, now they need to rise - not by much, if Rommey paid 20% on his earnings instead of 15% that would be enough.
Well yeah.... You get it. I get it too. The republicans do not get it.
CountArach
02-02-2012, 04:53
CA said something about "only ideologues can succeed" but the opposite is true...true ideologues have it tough, even when they are as inoffensive as Paul.
Sorry, I should clarify that I mean ideologues whose ideals are aligned with at least one of the major bases of their party.
But suppose a Mitt Romney makes it into office, looks at America's revenue problem and economic situation and decides to raise personal income taxes and cut the corporate rate? What if he looks at America's education situation and decides to take on the teacher's unions while at the same time funding more technology in the classroom? What if he decides to keep some of the more beneficial and popular aspects of Obamacare, but transfer the administration to the states, eliminate the individual mandate, and implement market-driven mechanisms. Would he be conservative or liberal, big government or small?
I do get what you mean but once again it plays into that dichotomy that demands that he be defined as one or the other and thus makes himself unpopular to both. If someone were to do things that you are suggesting then, whilst I would personally have a problem with a number of things you listed, I could accept that it would ultimately help America to at least head in a competent direction. I just couldn't see that lasting more than a single term, however.
ICantSpellDawg
02-02-2012, 05:47
Sorry, I should clarify that I mean ideologues whose ideals are aligned with at least one of the major bases of their party.
I do get what you mean but once again it plays into that dichotomy that demands that he be defined as one or the other and thus makes himself unpopular to both. If someone were to do things that you are suggesting then, whilst I would personally have a problem with a number of things you listed, I could accept that it would ultimately help America to at least head in a competent direction. I just couldn't see that lasting more than a single term, however.
Who needs more than a single term? The fear of a second term could be enough to keep the associates in line and the presidency out of lame duck status.
a completely inoffensive name
02-02-2012, 06:10
And what exactly is it that we have missed?
We thought we could control the world during the Cold War. And we nearly did. But it was obvious that a determined and entrenched group of cavemen could sabotage any sort of nation building required to generate legitimate, enlightened democracies. Vietnam showed this.
Now it is 10 years after the cold war and we are attacked. We retaliate, which is natural. But after 5 years of war in Afghanistan and 2 years in Iraq, we find what we found in Vietnam. That despite all of our bunker busters, drones, stealth fighters, a bunch of cavemen are sabotaging our ability to nation build properly, whether by physical disruption or propaganda.
MRD's stories of his encounters with belligerent mud farmers shows a tendency among the uneducated and religious to not cooperate. Meanwhile soldiers are killed in 1's or 2's or half a dozen every week or so.
And now in the present we have the argument presented, if only we showed the fear of god into them. if only we had MORE troops, MORE guns, BIGGER guns. oh but not nuclear weapons.
The afghani insurgency knows how big our guns are. They knew since we gave them some big guns back in the 80s. They don't care about conventional military when their fanaticism drives them to willingly live as cavemen (well, those that are not OBL obviously). Unless we have a conventional weapon that can bring down the Himalayan's or use nuclear weapons, it's ridiculous to give the view point you gave.
Oh, the wars are very much winnable. As for sharia-driven "democracies", they don't have to like us, they just need to understand that they should never cross us. I believe they have developed that understanding.
HA! Oh sure, and of course our fear mongering has led to our greatest ally Saudi Arabia to take measures to ensure that the 9/11 conspirators were not recruited from their country. Our fear mongering has ensured that Iran won't strive for a nuclear weapon. Our fear mongering has led to all the different middle eastern countries that KNOW a single stealth bomber could topple their government to obey our every command and help us with our goals in the region. Right.....
It's not our ability to kill two men, it's our ability to get the two very specific men who were in deep underground with large organizations sheltering them and supporting them.
Large organizations? Saddam was found in a hole in the ground by himself, keeping hydrated off of condensation from a pipe or something. OBL's location was hidden solely due to our naivety of information sharing with our "ally" Pakistan. Speaking of Pakistan, isn't that a sharia-driven democracy that we have an "understanding" with? Hmmmm, then how could they have been so bold as to hide OBL from us....
a completely inoffensive name
02-02-2012, 06:39
Spot on, ACIN. Our foreign policy is deeply flawed. However, I don't think you're giving Iraqis and Afghans the credit they deserve. I can only really speak for Bagdhad, but the population there was mostly literate, had internet access, understood what was going on politically and geopolitically, and were very capable of carrying on an educated political discussion with me.
A lot of Americans (and a lot of Soldiers) treat these guys like they're less than human, or as people who just don't get it. Now, I've never been to Afghanistan, but i've seen some interviews with Afghani folks picked off the street and they seemed pretty knowledgable about what was going on--assuming the subtitles were correct with their translations.
Thank you. You are right of course that this is not the middle ages in the middle east, and I did not want to paint the entire citizenry like that. However, the Arab spring in Egypt was the most technologically connected revolution the world has yet seen (that maybe could be argued against). However, for all their cries of liberty and their facebook connections with the outside world, Muslim Brotherhood trounced the rest in the election if I have the right numbers in front of me. Not exactly the kind of future the west wished for Egypt.
There is no doubt that many in Afghanistan understand the situation, it is something they have already seen back in the 1980s. So perhaps their resistance isn't from sheer ignorance, but a resignation that just as the islamic guard bid their time until the Soviet left so it will be with the US: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-afghanistan-idUSTRE8100E520120201?mrefid=
a completely inoffensive name
02-02-2012, 06:52
Well, my personal theory is that Iraq is just an awful lot more modern and cosmopolitan than Afghanistan. Even the dirt farmers in Iraq are never THAT far from a population center. Plus, the country shares borders with plenty of tehcnologically advances nations. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has far far more rural land--and I wouldn't say its too much of a stretch to say that you find the most knowledge the closer you get to the cities. Also, Afghanistan has some truly awful terrain and very few roads.
However, I would imagine most Afghanis have decent context for the war. I just don't see how they couldn't.
I wish I read more about Afghanistan or visited it once, because I can not decide either way.
Centurion1
02-02-2012, 07:01
Well, my personal theory is that Iraq is just an awful lot more modern and cosmopolitan than Afghanistan. Even the dirt farmers in Iraq are never THAT far from a population center. Plus, the country shares borders with plenty of tehcnologically advances nations. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has far far more rural land--and I wouldn't say its too much of a stretch to say that you find the most knowledge the closer you get to the cities. Also, Afghanistan has some truly awful terrain and very few roads.
However, I would imagine most Afghanis have decent context for the war. I just don't see how they couldn't.
iraq was a far more winnable war. also imho it was of greater real politik value. The iraqis at least know how to roll over and assimilate and change. Afghanis have a history and culture which revolves around resistance. Alexander the Great was at his harshest fighting in Afghanistan and suffered his greatest losses. Genghis Khan even had trouble until he killed all of them.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-02-2012, 09:27
“I’m in this race, because I care about Americans, I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.
“I’m not concerned about the very rich,” Romney added. “They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
“I am fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other,” Gingrich said. “I am running to be the president of all the American people and I am concerned about all the American people.”
Headline: GINGRICH CONCERNED ABOUT THE VERY RICH
Daaaaang. Anonymous exposes Ron Paul's connections with American Neo-Nazis. (http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in-national/hunting-nazis-anonymous-snares-ron-paul-operation-blitzkrieg)
On Tuesday, Anonymous enthusiasts hacked and defaced the website of American Third Position (A3P), a major US-based white supremacist network. According to Anonymous (http://pirasec.com/), documents liberated in the hack show that “Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors.”
Centurion1
02-02-2012, 14:49
I'm sorry, what? They didn't roll over or assimilate or change at all. While I agree with your idea that Iraq was more "winnable" I really think you need to look into the details more.
They have a history of it as compared to the afghanis. I'm not saying that they DID merely that they are far more likely too over time than a cultural group like the Afghanis.
Not to mention that Iraq politically, economically, and geographically was and is of far greater value to the US
Sasaki Kojiro
02-02-2012, 19:20
Doesn't say what he met them about.
But Cube, I don't think giving free medical care to black people has much to do with not being racist. Many of the abolitionists were racist. The things that were in the journals "5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" are perfectly compatible with being compassionate enough to give free medical care.
Somewhat related: CAN'T TELL IF IRONIC OR SINCERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUxm6TWSLVk&feature=player_embedded#!
The whole question of whether or not Ron Paul is racist is a difficult one and to me it seems there's evidence to support both sides. On the one hand, we have the racist newsletters, and now it turns out he's met with white supremacist groups. But on the other hand, he never took part in the birther movement, and he called out some of the other candidates when they made anti-muslim or anti-mormon statements, so it's kind of a tough call.
Crazed Rabbit
02-03-2012, 07:47
I was reading there was a fringe of libertarians who sought to make common cause on some issues with racists back in the 1990s, on small government issues and the like. I don't think he's racist, though.
CR
I don't think [Ron Paul]'s racist, though.
Agree. In his public statements and writings, there's not a hint of it. And in the debates he was the only candidate with the stones to point out that the war on drugs targets and incarcerates minorities at a ridiculous rate.
He may have associate with racists in the past, but I see no evidence Ron Paul is a cross-burner.
Apparently, Paul and aides used to meet regularly with Stormfront and other white nationalist groups in a Thai Restaurant in Virginia.
(http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm)
Um, they all like Thai?
Ruh-roh. Not looking good for Dr. Paul.
Tellos Athenaios
02-03-2012, 15:55
Looks like Paul can do that missing-left-arm trick.
Also is it just me or does Paul have just the right facial expression for a “Ron Paul was here” type image macro/meme? Slightly goofy depending on setting but not too much to look intentional?
Tellos Athenaios
02-03-2012, 16:33
Also, lest we forget the man in our preoccupied dislike of Gingrich, Romney and Paul: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291988/20120202/rick-santorum-health-care-insurance-daughter.htm
By contrast, Paul looks positively sane.
a completely inoffensive name
02-04-2012, 03:51
Well, looks like I can't even root for Ron Paul out of spite towards the others.
This new news with Paul disturbs me.
Romney is still lame although I think he might not be the isolated rich man I thought he was.
Santorum is yeah...what TA showed.
At this point I am only going to listen to the GOP debates to get my fix of Gingrich's ego candy sound bytes.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2012, 04:16
Seriously? You guys believe that the drug (Abilify) costs a million dollars a year for one kid?
Seriously? You guys believe that the drug (Abilify) costs a million dollars a year for one kid?
Sounds like her info is out of date. On boards from 2009, people are saying a 90-day supply was $1300, but current sites show prices more in the $400-$300 range. Still out of reach if you're uninsured, and her $1M is a gross exaggeration.
CountArach
02-04-2012, 10:31
Apparently, Paul and aides used to meet regularly with Stormfront and other white nationalist groups in a Thai Restaurant in Virginia.
(http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm)
Has no one pointed out the irony of a white supremacist meeting... in a Thai restaurant?
Tellos Athenaios
02-04-2012, 11:19
Sounds like her info is out of date. On boards from 2009, people are saying a 90-day supply was $1300, but current sites show prices more in the $400-$300 range.Little searching shows me things from ~$300,- to $1K. Depends on the dosage and size of the package. Those pills come in from 2mg to 30mg. If you're on a 30mg dosage...
http://www.northdrugstore.com/buy-Abilify.html
Recommended dosage is 10-15mg but they keep open the possibility of increases, so assuming 15mg a day the most expensive thing works out as: 365 * ($155 / 28) = $2021; assuming 20mg a day: 365 * ($325 / 30) = $3954.
Still out of reach if you're uninsured, and her $1M is a gross exaggeration.
Well, quite. Insurance policies aren't going to (fully) refund that either unless you are taking a very hefty insurance policy indeed, at which point you've got that money either way.
Tellos Athenaios
02-04-2012, 11:28
Has no one pointed out the irony of a white supremacist meeting... in a Thai restaurant?
Well the food is probably good, as opposed to Applebee's...
Sarmatian
02-04-2012, 12:00
Apparently, Paul and aides used to meet regularly with Stormfront and other white nationalist groups in a Thai Restaurant in Virginia.
(http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm)
Which self-respecting Stormfront members would meet in a THAI restaurant? That's like Hitler and Goering meeting in a Synagogue.
Has no one pointed out the irony of a white supremacist meeting... in a Thai restaurant?
Don't be silly CA, everybody knows the untermenschen will be allowed to cook and clean.
...Kelso, a former Scientologist and account owner of other German Nazi forums, became an active supporter of Paul in 2007....
Oh man.... a nazi scientologist. This is just priceless. I'm rather surprised that Paul got mixed up with these people as I do believe him to be a good man who has no nazi leanings whatsoever.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-05-2012, 03:12
Not strictly on topic, but if you want to feel a bit better about our politics...
Francisco Everardo Oliveira Silva (born 1 May 1965), best known by the stage name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_name) Tiririca, is a Brazilian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_people) actor, clown, comedian, humorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorist), politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) and singer-songwriter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer-songwriter).
Tiririca went on a meteoric national success when his first album Florentina (1997) went to top charts, breaking sales records. Being a one-hit wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-hit_wonder), he went to work in television humor programs and returned to the Brazilian headlines in 2010, when he became the second-most-voted congressman in Brazil's history.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-0)
His first album also gave rise to much controversy; it contained the song "Veja os cabelos dela" ("Look at Her Hair"), which many branded as racist. The album's copies were seized from stores, the song banned from radio stations, and Tiririca was tried for racism. In the end, he was acquitted and a second version of the album without that song was released.
In 2010, Tiririca announced he would run for the National Congress after being invited by the Brazilian Republic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Party). He appeared in television ads in his Tiririca persona and used slogans including "O que é que faz um deputado federal? Na realidade, eu não sei. Mas vote em mim que eu te conto" ("What does a federal congressman do? I really don't know – but if you vote for me, I'll tell ya"),
Tiririca was denounced as an illiterate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiteracy) by Época (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Época) magazine in its 24 September 2010 edition. This statement, if true, would invalidate his candidacy. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-2) Soon after the release of the Épocaedition that claimed Tiririca's illiteracy, prosecutor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor) Maurício Lopes sued Tiririca for forging his signature in his candidacy forms. Despite the trial having not yet taken place and all the negative propaganda about his alleged illiteracy, on 3 October 2010, Tiririca became the most-voted-for Congressman in the 2010 Brazilian general elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_general_election,_2010) (and the second-most-voted-for in Brazilian history, after Enéas Carneiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enéas_Carneiro)), winning his seat for São Paulo state with 1,348,295 votes (6.35 percent). [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-3)
On 30 October 2010, Tiririca's defense team alleged that he suffered from dysgraphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia), which prevented him from holding a pen firmly. They further alleged that Tiririca's wife helped him write the literacy statement in his own hand, as demanded by Brazilian electoral law. She is said to have placed her hand over his to help him hold the pen firmly as he was writing. Also because of this condition, the defense said, Tiririca could not take any writing tests.
The explanation, however, runs counter to a video recorded by Época in September that gave rise to the suspicions of illiteracy. The pictures show Tiririca giving his autograph to a fan. On foot, suddenly, Tiririca secures a notebook with his left hand and scribbles a circular signature with his right hand. He further writes the letters for his name. He shows no trouble whatsoever holding the pen.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-4)
After many discussions and judicial tribulations, Tiririca underwent a simple reading and writing test and on 11 November 2010, he finally proved that he was indeed literate. Although the prosecutor appealed against this decision, claiming that his thirty-percent score in the test was too low to prove anything, the federal judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judge) Walter de Almeida Guilherme rejected the appeal.
A curious fact is that two days before he received his certificate (15 December 2010), during his first visit to the Brazilian Congress building, the Brazilian congressesmen had approved a salary raise of sixty percent for themselves. When asked about the fact by a news reporter, Tiririca said "Dei sorte...no meu primeiro dia ganhei um aumento!!" ("I guess I'm lucky... on my first day I got a raise!!")
a completely inoffensive name
02-05-2012, 08:52
Not strictly on topic, but if you want to feel a bit better about our politics...
Why would reading about the failures of the Brazilian public make me feel better?
In other news, I read that among people in Florida who said commercials were not important, Gingrich and Romney were neck and neck. People who said commercials were important, were overwhelmingly Romney. Money doesn't buy elections indeed....
PanzerJaeger
02-05-2012, 08:57
In other news, I read that among people in Florida who said commercials were not important, Gingrich and Romney were neck and neck. People who said commercials were important, were overwhelmingly Romney. Money doesn't buy elections indeed....
Just wondering - are you in favor of outlawing yard signs and bumper stickers?
a completely inoffensive name
02-05-2012, 09:05
Just wondering - are you in favor of outlawing yard signs and bumper stickers?
I hate it when people create such beautiful looking scarecrows only to tear them down.
It makes me weep PJ, to think of all the scarecrows across the internet that have existed for only a few brief moments before getting dismantled.
PanzerJaeger
02-05-2012, 09:11
I hate it when people create such beautiful looking scarecrows only to tear them down.
It makes me weep PJ, to think of all the scarecrows across the internet that have existed for only a few brief moments before getting dismantled.
It was an honest question. (~:() How far do you extend your grievance with money in politics?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-05-2012, 09:22
In other news, I read that among people in Florida who said commercials were not important, Gingrich and Romney were neck and neck. People who said commercials were important, were overwhelmingly Romney. Money doesn't buy elections indeed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TobmtxHQoZE
So some people watched this ad and got a less favorable view of Gingrich? Is that "buying" an election?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/did-romneys-ad-advantage-help-in-florida/#more-25105
a completely inoffensive name
02-05-2012, 09:47
It was an honest question. (~:() How far do you extend your grievance with money in politics?
I am very sorry PJ, I thought you were being a big meanie.
Well PJ, your question has me stumped because I have been trying to look back and forth across this issue for about two years.
I get that whenever you purchase anything from markers, to poster paper, to commercials to billboards this is essentially using your money in order to talk. Not being able to use your money is the same as being silenced. So I accept the premise that money=free speech. How could it not in a capitalistic society right?
However, I hate people who refuse to become less ignorant. I know I myself am an idiot. I reveal myself as an idiot almost every time I open my mouth in here. Sasaki does a good job of showing my stupidity every time he replies to me. But I like to think that because I at least try to learn when some one says, "You're stupid and here is why." I am a responsible citizen. But most people from what I can tell are not like that. They don't try to learn the other side too often. They rely solely on sources like MSNBC or Fox or CNN. They have their personal guidelines and don't deviate that far from them. They are stupid sometimes. Some people like to walk up to the voting box and proclaim, "I've voted for Ron Paul for 20 years and damn if I'm not going to again!" (true story btw). But these are the people advertising is meant for. People who know nothing about candidates. People who know nothing about policy. Sure there are subjects I have no idea about either, but I try not to open my mouth and instead just lurk and read (like with the Euro crisis thread). People don't lurk and read though. They just make opinions. Why would I want these people to vote in the first place? They are not helping the country. Yeah very elitist of me, I know, but it's true imo.
So no, I would rather not have a system catering to these kinds of people. Just like at my university, I detest the actions of student campaigns to gets as many young people registered and voting as possible. If they care, they would be taking the initiative to do it themselves (like I did) in a proper educated manner, since they obviously don't why are we pushing them to the voting booths?
But even if I were to say I don't want companies, or SuperPACs or whatever legal code an organization is given to be able to advertise, or that I don't want private funding of campaigns, I know the danger of such a precedent. If I were to ban campaign advertising, then I am saying that one company (a tv network) can't establish a contract with another private entity, even if both agree or the terms because of the subject matter. It's 1. censorship of a kind and 2. possibly dangerous towards property rights.
But the system is obviously broken. Why? Because our politicians are crap. Why? Because people elect crappy politicians. They elect smooth talkers, hard core ideological promoters, obviously corrupt people who remain because of the pork they have brought in to their local area. And they don't really think about any of it. They say to themselves R or D, if they haven't chosen already and let the commercials or grandiose debate speeches sweep them.
It reminds me of a Mark Twain essay called "Corn-pone Opinions"
Men think they think upon great political questions, and they do; but they think with their party, not independently; they read its literature, but not that of the other side; they arrive at convictions, but they are drawn from a partial view of the matter in hand and are of no particular value. They swarm with their party, they feel with their party, they are happy in their party's approval; andwhere the party leads they will follow, whether for right and honor, or through blood and dirt and a mush of mutilated morals.
In our late canvass half of the nation passionately believed that in silver lay salvation, the other half as passionately believed that that way lay destruction. Do you believe that a tenth part of the people, on either side, had any rational excuse for having an opinion about the matter at all? I studied that mighty question to the bottom -- came out empty. Half of our people passionately believe in high tariff, the other half believe otherwise. Does this mean study and examination, or only feeling? The latter, I think. I have deeply studied that question, too -- and didn't arrive. We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation which we consider a boon. Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it the Voice of God.
So basically, to answer your question PJ, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Part of me wants to say damn it all, and isolate people from the opinions of others, prevent them from relying on the media to tell them how to feel and think, so that maybe, just maybe people will start to think as an individual out of necessity. Be more critical and proactive with the information they seek due to being forced into searching for it themselves and not having it handed to them in a pre-packaged form in 30 seconds or less.
But part of me doesn't like the path it would take to get there. Because once you take that step of telling people, "you can't spend your money on that. you can't use your property like that." for something as fundamental as expressing political speech, then you are in for a world of trouble.
a completely inoffensive name
02-05-2012, 09:54
So some people watched this ad and got a less favorable view of Gingrich? Is that "buying" an election?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/did-romneys-ad-advantage-help-in-florida/#more-25105
Yes. People are stupid and by basing opinions off of "scary" attack ads, the commercials dictate how they vote.
As for the fivethirtyeight link you posted, nate says what nate has been saying about everything for the past 2 months now "We can't say at this point."
The problem I have though is that my other sources of news keep referring to a poll that had responders declare how important advertising was to them. Nate just tries to group people in geographical areas and arrives at conflicting results, all of which he deems statistically insignificant anyway. So much ado about nothing there. I must find this poll I hear about.
So ... is it safe to say this thing is over? Or do we have to wait a few weeks?
Crazed Rabbit
02-05-2012, 16:54
I was talking to a Gingrich support who was rabid, almost, in their hatred of Romney. They said he'd be just like Obama (Buffet said so!), that his attack ads are full of lies about Newt resigning in disgrace, he's the establishment candidate.
Statements by me about Newt's unelectability went unheeded. He told me there's apparently a lot of thought in certain blogs and whatnot to not even vote for Romney in the general, but to vote for the Green party, to build them up so they feed off the democratic party.
They are opposed to voting for Libertarians because they don't want to help a party that takes votes from republicans. So they hate the republican (eventual) nominee and instead of actually working to build a counterweight to the establishment they hate, they remain locked in a narrow partisan band of action.
Earlier they told me I should vote for the GOP candidate even if I don't like them to make sure we get good SCOTUS appointments, but now the plan is to just win the Senate somehow.
So what I'm saying is, if you have dirt on why Gingrich is terrible and not really conservative (his video with Pelosi and denouncing of Paul Ryan's budget were brushed off as occasional mistakes) lay it on me, and I shall use it righteously, to rob Gingrich of support.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-05-2012, 17:39
But most people from what I can tell are not like that. They don't try to learn the other side too often. They rely solely on sources like MSNBC or Fox or CNN. They have their personal guidelines and don't deviate that far from them. They are stupid sometimes. Some people like to walk up to the voting box and proclaim, "I've voted for Ron Paul for 20 years and damn if I'm not going to again!" (true story btw). But these are the people advertising is meant for. People who know nothing about candidates. People who know nothing about policy. Sure there are subjects I have no idea about either, but I try not to open my mouth and instead just lurk and read (like with the Euro crisis thread). People don't lurk and read though. They just make opinions. Why would I want these people to vote in the first place? They are not helping the country. Yeah very elitist of me, I know, but it's true imo.
You might like:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1188
But the system is obviously broken. Why? Because our politicians are crap. Why? Because people elect crappy politicians. They elect smooth talkers, hard core ideological promoters, obviously corrupt people who remain because of the pork they have brought in to their local area. And they don't really think about any of it. They say to themselves R or D, if they haven't chosen already and let the commercials or grandiose debate speeches sweep them.
My impression from history is that it's quite likely that today we have better politicians and less corrupt politicians than historically. Certainly whatever corruption there is is nowhere near breaking the system. People like to focus on it because it gives them an explanation for why things aren't going the way they want. It's easier for people to claim that politicians are being bought than that few people agree with them, and easier to think that corporate donations are the reason "nothing gets done" than that slow movement is a natural feature of our government that won't be going away anytime soon.
One nitpick, I think a very large percent of Americans call themselves independent.
So basically, to answer your question PJ, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Part of me wants to say damn it all, and isolate people from the opinions of others, prevent them from relying on the media to tell them how to feel and think, so that maybe, just maybe people will start to think as an individual out of necessity. Be more critical and proactive with the information they seek due to being forced into searching for it themselves and not having it handed to them in a pre-packaged form in 30 seconds or less.
Most Americans agree on the basics, and they are right about the basics, and their skepticism about anyone trying to sell them on something different seems like a pretty good check in the system of checks and balances to me.
Also, if there's an attack ad that criticizes someone for being out of touch and rich or something like that, the problem is less the ad itself than the fact that we still have a national idea that those things are terrible. And that kind of thing can get out there without any tv ad-- the fabricated hit piece the NYT ran on Bush being amazed by a grocery store check out machine was just in a regular newspaper.
Not strictly on topic, but if you want to feel a bit better about our politics...
Francisco Everardo Oliveira Silva (born 1 May 1965), best known by the stage name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_name) Tiririca, is a Brazilian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_people) actor, clown, comedian, humorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorist), politician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician) and singer-songwriter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer-songwriter).
Tiririca went on a meteoric national success when his first album Florentina (1997) went to top charts, breaking sales records. Being a one-hit wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-hit_wonder), he went to work in television humor programs and returned to the Brazilian headlines in 2010, when he became the second-most-voted congressman in Brazil's history.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-0)
His first album also gave rise to much controversy; it contained the song "Veja os cabelos dela" ("Look at Her Hair"), which many branded as racist. The album's copies were seized from stores, the song banned from radio stations, and Tiririca was tried for racism. In the end, he was acquitted and a second version of the album without that song was released.
In 2010, Tiririca announced he would run for the National Congress after being invited by the Brazilian Republic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Party). He appeared in television ads in his Tiririca persona and used slogans including "O que é que faz um deputado federal? Na realidade, eu não sei. Mas vote em mim que eu te conto" ("What does a federal congressman do? I really don't know – but if you vote for me, I'll tell ya"),
Tiririca was denounced as an illiterate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiteracy) by Época (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89poca) magazine in its 24 September 2010 edition. This statement, if true, would invalidate his candidacy. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-2) Soon after the release of the Épocaedition that claimed Tiririca's illiteracy, prosecutor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor) Maurício Lopes sued Tiririca for forging his signature in his candidacy forms. Despite the trial having not yet taken place and all the negative propaganda about his alleged illiteracy, on 3 October 2010, Tiririca became the most-voted-for Congressman in the 2010 Brazilian general elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_general_election,_2010) (and the second-most-voted-for in Brazilian history, after Enéas Carneiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%A9as_Carneiro)), winning his seat for São Paulo state with 1,348,295 votes (6.35 percent). [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-3)
On 30 October 2010, Tiririca's defense team alleged that he suffered from dysgraphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia), which prevented him from holding a pen firmly. They further alleged that Tiririca's wife helped him write the literacy statement in his own hand, as demanded by Brazilian electoral law. She is said to have placed her hand over his to help him hold the pen firmly as he was writing. Also because of this condition, the defense said, Tiririca could not take any writing tests.
The explanation, however, runs counter to a video recorded by Época in September that gave rise to the suspicions of illiteracy. The pictures show Tiririca giving his autograph to a fan. On foot, suddenly, Tiririca secures a notebook with his left hand and scribbles a circular signature with his right hand. He further writes the letters for his name. He shows no trouble whatsoever holding the pen.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiririca#cite_note-4)
After many discussions and judicial tribulations, Tiririca underwent a simple reading and writing test and on 11 November 2010, he finally proved that he was indeed literate. Although the prosecutor appealed against this decision, claiming that his thirty-percent score in the test was too low to prove anything, the federal judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judge) Walter de Almeida Guilherme rejected the appeal.
A curious fact is that two days before he received his certificate (15 December 2010), during his first visit to the Brazilian Congress building, the Brazilian congressesmen had approved a salary raise of sixty percent for themselves. When asked about the fact by a news reporter, Tiririca said "Dei sorte...no meu primeiro dia ganhei um aumento!!" ("I guess I'm lucky... on my first day I got a raise!!")
Well, Brazilian politics is kinda crazy, is a fascinatingly awesome way. Compared to the crooks in the Brazilian Congress, the American Congress is as pure as a monastery. Their party system is absolutely mental, with a bazillion parties, and a hangover from the days in which Brazilian society was directed by the noble, landowning elite. There's very little ideologically between the parties, and all that differentiates them is their geographic location. Because of this, Brazilian coalitions are rather fickle. Furthermore, Brazilian Congresspeople are notoriously corrupt, and not even in a semi-legal way.
Tellos Athenaios
02-06-2012, 09:31
Kinda funny Mitt Romney the welfare queen (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122164215194680.html)
Yes, I know it's obvious/partisan and the rest of it, but since it's election season -- everything goes.
CountArach
02-06-2012, 10:42
Why would reading about the failures of the Brazilian public make me feel better?
In other news, I read that among people in Florida who said commercials were not important, Gingrich and Romney were neck and neck. People who said commercials were important, were overwhelmingly Romney. Money doesn't buy elections indeed....
We should be vary wary of believing these statistics (http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/ignore-those-polls-influence-on-vote.html):
Similarly, there was a ton of coverage about exit polls in Florida that asked about whether ads or debates had influenced vote choice (sorry, no links; most of what I heard was on TV and radio). Hey, reporters: don't believe those polls! People have no real way of knowing how they were influenced in these sorts of things even if they try real hard, and there's no reason to believe that exit poll respondents did any such self-examination. Don't believe me? Ask a room full of people if they vote based on political party. You'll get only a handful of people who believe that they do -- and yet we know very well that party is far and away the biggest factor in partisan elections.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 16:37
Ask a room full of people if they vote based on political party. You'll get only a handful of people who believe that they do -- and yet we know very well that party is far and away the biggest factor in partisan elections.
I agree with the other bit, but this is nonsense.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 16:47
Is it? Maybe not for you, maybe not for the peope you hang out with, but it has always been my (supposedly) fair impression that people vote for the party they were raised to vote for. Maybe this is to be expected in your 20's, but that's still not okay.
If certain christians vote republican, it's not "to vote republican" it's because they were raised with certain beliefs as christians that match the republican party better.
It's like saying people decide who to love based on who they are married to.
[I]t has always been my (supposedly) fair impression that people vote for the party they were raised to vote for.
If certain christians vote republican, it's not "to vote republican" it's because they were raised with certain beliefs as christians that match the republican party better.
The average person tells themselves that they vote on issues, but I'm afraid GC and CA are in the right of it. Every study I've seen on voter behavior points to an obvious and unpleasant truth; tribal/group identification is far more powerful than any issue. The parties, if they are smart, recognize this, and do as little as possible to cut against the grain of the people who identify with them.
Even so-called independents have been shown to most likely be weakly (but consistently) identified with one party or the other. The population of true "independents" is tiny.
It's touching and sweet that you believe in rational voters, but every study on the subject points in the opposite direction. The last time there was any major re-alignment of population and party was a mass shift in the South from Democrat to Republican in the 1960s, for reasons too obvious to belabor. And even then it was a group shift; the tribe relocated en masse.
Meanwhile, New declares that he will soldier on. Don't really see why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI-2ILq3c30
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 17:37
If people have always voted republican, even if they call themselves independent, and don't pay much attention to the issues, you guys are calling that "voting by party". But if they watch one debate and are reminded that the republicans are anti-illegal immigration, pro strong military, etc, and the agree with that stuff, that's what they are voting on, however superficial their understanding is.
A republican candidate who started simpering about "what right do we really have to criticize Iran for having nukes when we're the only country that's used them?" would lose the primaries so bad. So much for your tribal identification.
The parties, if they are smart, recognize [tribal identification], and do as little as possible to cut against the grain of the people who identify with them.
A republican candidate who started simpering about "what right do we really have to criticize Iran for having nukes when we're the only country that's used them?" would lose the primaries so bad. So much for your tribal identification.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the most weird use of "simpering" I've ever seen this morning.
Secondly, there are two separate dynamics which you are conflating. Voters' well-documented tribal identification is one; parties' self-policing to maintain that identification is another. You seem to believe that by pointing out that a candidate who violates the accepted tone and content of the party would be rejected, and this somehow conclusively proves that there's no such thing as tribal identification.
"Simpering." Hah. Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the Org this morning.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 18:23
Lol, simpering doesn't mean what I thought it meant. I was mixing it up with sniveling.
Anyway. There is a nasty (but natural) tendency in American politics to invent explanations for why people don't agree with you. It ranges from "all the politicians are bought and paid for" to "the common people vote mindlessly based on party". I take explanations like this as seriously as I take indy music fans who say the only reason their favorite band isn't more popular is because people are brainwashed by mass media.
"tribal identification" people think of themselves as republican. Yes. But when they say they don't vote based on party the are correct, not amusingly mistaken like little children--as the above writer would like to believe.
"tribal identification" people think of themselves as republican.
Or Democrat, in this country. (Or a Tory or LibDem in another; the actual parties are immaterial.)
I don't see tribal identification as applying to any party exclusively. Neither do I think TI rules out brain, thoughtfulness or issues. I think the theory is revealing, rather than comprehensive. If I were to really articulate how I think it works, I would compare political impulses to the endocrine system, where multiple vectors of self-regulation result in a more-or-less functioning hormonal system. Tribal identification is one of those vectors.
It seems as though you're approaching this from an "eggheads trying to explain why people don't think" perspective. I'm coming at it from more of a "we tell ourselves why we do things, and those stories we tell ourselves are often woefully incomplete if not outright lies."
Are there eggheads who try to write off their fellow men as idiots? Sure, absolutely. But do we also tell ourselves lies and rationalize our behavior and generally have a hard time seeing the root of our motivations? I think you'd find that hard to argue against.
-edit-
My google-fu is failing this morning, but there was a fascinating study where people who strongly identified with a political party were shown contrary evidence. In other words, they were presented with an article that showed something negative about their chosen party. Then the eggheads used FMRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging) to watch how their brains lit up. What's fascinating is that the rejection and negative emotions came first, long before the parts of the brain associated with logic and reason lit up. Eventually the subjects would give a reason why the evidence was pointless, or moot, or propaganda, or whatever. But the implication was clear: we decide first, then work backwards from that decision to justify what we've already concluded.
The implications are interesting.
-edit of the edit-
Found the article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-political-brain).
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," [...] "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.
Separate issue: Looks like voter turnout in the GOP primary has been ~20% lower across the board. Why do you think that is? Two explanations leap to my mind (and neither one is necessarily correct):
This simply isn't a very competitive primary, and most (non) voters assume Romney will win. Hence the depressed turnout.
Lower enthusiasm for the candidates across the board.
Other theories?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 20:05
There are many such studies (with most of them if you throw out the scientific talk you get something you already knew, it is called a "finding" nonetheless, but this is off topic). The difficulty is in painting a broader picture. My observation is that the narrative told by the researchers in this kind of psychology is generally of very poor quality. Partisans are partisan--we know that already. Anyone who has supported a candidate and argued about it in the run up to the election understands this psychology perfectly well.
Remember back in my first post I agreed with the guy who said that people probably don't know exactly how the ads affected them (by the way, I thought ads were supposed to be most effective in suppressing the vote anyway--that surely won't show up in an exit poll). It's not a question of denying that the human mind has some emotional feature. But saying that it does is trivial and runs into a big "And so?" real fast.
I'll make an analogy to optical illusions. You can do research finding out various optical illusions and then make a little story about how "human eyesight is systematically flawed--we never see the true reality" or "you have to acknowledge the limitations of our vision". But most optical illusions show a tremendously important feature of our vision. We see dark spots where its actually white--this is the feature that allows us to see edges and judge how an object is three dimensional.
We go straight to emotion when defending our party--a husband does the same defending his wife and family. Hardly lamentable. In the end, it's really only worthwhile writing about what is correct and what is wrong, which party is right and which isn't, not the everyday normal psychology of politically minded people. It's the desire to know the truth of a particular issue that is the antidote to cognitive bias. Personal experience of where you tend to go wrong and a sense of when you are is useful too. Scientific studies not so much--the only advantage they have to experience is that some people accept them as legitimate more easily, which is also the biggest knock against them--especially since they filter into the public through journalists. I think psychology should stick to the abnormal.
You can do research finding out various optical illusions and then make a little story about how "human eyesight is systematically flawed--we never see the true reality"
Which happens to be entirely true. I find the tricks and contortions our brains go through to fill in the blanks kinda fascinating.
In the end, it's really only worthwhile writing about what is correct and what is wrong, which party is right and which isn't
I would be interested to hear you expand on this theory. Surely two (or more) political parties can have divergent goals without one being right and the other wrong, wouldn't you say? Let's say we live in the town of Exampleville. The Mayor, who is a Whig, wants to spend $20,000 renovating the town pool. The Exampleville Town Council, which is dominated by Jacobites, wants that money spent on the library. They're at loggerheads and everyone's very angry.
How do you decide who is correct and who is wrong? The Whigs want a pool, the Jacobites want a refurbished library. If we can only write about what's correct and what's wrong, how do we approach this conflict?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 20:23
The library. Heck, I just ordered three books from the library in between posts. I have gone to the library and been in a pool and it is perfectly obvious to me.
Now if people disagree with me maybe I will pull out some study claiming they have this cognitive bias--I will say, it's domain specific thinking, they are remember the happiest times in the pool and so they have this happy emotional memory that leads them to have an automatic attachment or something.
The point was--if I was undecided, the way to figure it out would not be by asking myself what biases the different parties were suffering from. A broken clock can be right.
Which happens to be entirely true. I find the tricks and contortions our brains go through to fill in the blanks kinda fascinating.
I find it interesting sometimes, but that's just natural curiosity. A study on confirmation bias is no more enlightening towards a political question than a study on why our peripheral night vision is better than our straight forward vision--but it does seem to people like it is.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-06-2012, 22:47
If certain christians vote republican, it's not "to vote republican" it's because they were raised with certain beliefs as christians that match the republican party better.
It's like saying people decide who to love based on who they are married to.
Broadly, the Democrats are more "Christian", Evangrlical-Republicanism is Reagan.
Man, that guy was clever - turning his party into a religion.
The average person tells themselves that they vote on issues, but I'm afraid GC and CA are in the right of it. Every study I've seen on voter behavior points to an obvious and unpleasant truth; tribal/group identification is far more powerful than any issue. The parties, if they are smart, recognize this, and do as little as possible to cut against the grain of the people who identify with them
The partisan identification of your parents is the single most important factor in deciding your partisanship.
Even so-called independents have been shown to most likely be weakly (but consistently) identified with one party or the other. The population of true "independents" is tiny.
90% of American independents are actually false, and vote for the same party every single time.
If people have always voted republican, even if they call themselves independent, and don't pay much attention to the issues, you guys are calling that "voting by party". But if they watch one debate and are reminded that the republicans are anti-illegal immigration, pro strong military, etc, and the agree with that stuff, that's what they are voting on, however superficial their understanding is.
That distinction seems somewhat redundant.
Centurion1
02-07-2012, 00:18
Is it okay to have nearly all white evangelical christians voting for the same political party? It really does amount to the church saying "Vote Republican." Is that alright with you?
I guess I'm trying to start an argument about Party Platforms again. Is it okay that things are allowed to be as ignorantly partisan as they are, for both sides? What could even be done about it?
Is it alright that something like 90% of blacks vote for democrats? Is that ok?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2012, 00:45
The partisan identification of your parents is the single most important factor in deciding your partisanship.
No. The partisan identification of the parents is the best indicator of what the children's partisanship will be. I don't think this distinction is that complicated. You can either insult people by saying they are dumb enough to "just vote the way my ma and pa voted" or state the trivial truth that heredity and upbringing affect political beliefs.
90% of American independents are actually false, and vote for the same party every single time.
How does that make them false independents? If someone likes the social conservatism of the Republicans but likes the Democratic attitude towards welfare, if they decide that welfare is more important each election you are calling them straight up Democrats? They aren't married to the party, it depends on how the candidates approach those two issues. It's intellectual independence.
I really wonder about people who find it easy to believe the "just vote based on party" thing.
That distinction seems somewhat redundant.
Not remotely...why do you think the primaries get so heated if people just care about the party!!! :laugh4:
You think they are just concerned about electability?
CountArach
02-07-2012, 05:52
If certain christians vote republican, it's not "to vote republican" it's because they were raised with certain beliefs as christians that match the republican party better.
Ah but by saying they are voting for the Republican party you've already conceded a point - party-level politics are more important than candidate-level poitics. If an evangelical Democrat runs against an evangelical Republican, the evangelical Republican is going to win because the Republicans are the party of the evangelicals.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2012, 06:14
Ah but by saying they are voting for the Republican party you've already conceded a point - party-level politics are more important than candidate-level poitics. If an evangelical Democrat runs against an evangelical Republican, the evangelical Republican is going to win because the Republicans are the party of the evangelicals.
An ideologically Republican person would not do well running as a Democrat? Yes?
What do you mean.
Republican candidates take a generally pro-christian stance. If I remember correctly though there's a fair amount of Evangelicals who don't bother voting because the Republicans aren't good enough for them.
CountArach
02-07-2012, 06:36
An ideologically Republican person would not do well running as a Democrat? Yes?
What do you mean.
Republican candidates take a generally pro-christian stance. If I remember correctly though there's a fair amount of Evangelicals who don't bother voting because the Republicans aren't good enough for them.
What I'm saying is that if two candidates have very similar stances on the various issues that matter to person X, person X will vote with their party identification rather than based on other issues. Hence party identification is what matters in electoral politics.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2012, 08:35
What I'm saying is that if two candidates have very similar stances on the various issues that matter to person X, person X will vote with their party identification rather than based on other issues. Hence party identification is what matters in electoral politics.
But you conditioned it on them having the same stances on everything that matters! Hence party identification is exactly what doesn't matter.
Do you think this is a good thing? What are your thoughts on religious politics derailing the traditional GOP platform of a small government and a small budget?
I don't know that religion contradicts small government or small budget really. Actually I don't think there are many important religious issues in politics. They just get talked about disproportionately.
I know who's got my vote. Sweet Meteor of Death 2012!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqQzYUJeVg
ICantSpellDawg
02-07-2012, 19:46
What I'm saying is that if two candidates have very similar stances on the various issues that matter to person X, person X will vote with their party identification rather than based on other issues. Hence party identification is what matters in electoral politics.
Tell that to Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr. I think that pro-life democrats do well in the south, too.
I keep thinking this thing is over, and then, irritatingly, it isn't (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72583.html).
gaelic cowboy
02-08-2012, 10:33
So let me get this strainght there are no votes distributed from these polls right.
So the GOP delegates from these states could just ignore the result and back Romney anyway yes/no.
I bet once people have forgotten the result in a few weeks they will quietly do so then.
I don't know that religion contradicts small government or small budget really. Actually I don't think there are many important religious issues in politics. They just get talked about disproportionately.
a lot of American religious types seem to be for small government, but at the same time think the government should have a say on what people can do in the bedroom.....seems like a contradiction to me.
Last night Mittens has learned that fate is a cruel, capricious mistress. Santorum winning all three states was quite a show.
No. The partisan identification of the parents is the best indicator of what the children's partisanship will be. I don't think this distinction is that complicated. You can either insult people by saying they are dumb enough to "just vote the way my ma and pa voted" or state the trivial truth that heredity and upbringing affect political beliefs.
I didn't say what you think I said.
How does that make them false independents? If someone likes the social conservatism of the Republicans but likes the Democratic attitude towards welfare, if they decide that welfare is more important each election you are calling them straight up Democrats? They aren't married to the party, it depends on how the candidates approach those two issues. It's intellectual independence.
If the parties' positions change, they may well change their identification. But given the party system at the moment in time, they are de facto Democrats.
I really wonder about people who find it easy to believe the "just vote based on party" thing.
Huh? Partisan identification is a real thing, at least in the Anglophone Democracies, and some people are born and will die and never change party once.
Not remotely...why do you think the primaries get so heated if people just care about the party!!! :laugh4:
Because parties are themselves coalitions, and people want to see the faction they most identify with within the party triumph. A libertarian and an evangelical can both be partisan Republicans.
I am beyond confused. Can any Republican on the Org explain what happened last night? As an outsider looking in, I find the course of this primary strange to the point of absurdity.
Is Romney really that unpopular within the base?
I am beyond confused. Can any Republican on the Org explain what happened last night? As an outsider looking in, I find the course of this primary strange to the point of absurdity.
Is Romney really that unpopular within the base?
Every time he tries to light up the inevitability cigar the winds seem to change. To answer your question, yes, he is THAT unpopular. The base would ditch him for just about any alternative mainly because the man lacks any convictions and is to put it bluntly a liar. And by 'liar' I mean 'more of a liar than what is considered palatable'.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2012, 19:40
I am beyond confused. Can any Republican on the Org explain what happened last night? As an outsider looking in, I find the course of this primary strange to the point of absurdity.Is Romney really that unpopular within the base?The key point to remember Lemur, is that there is no unified "base" anymore. After Obama won, the different factions began to break apart due to the crushing blow that the 2008 elections gave to the GOP. The first destabilization was the Tea Party libertarians, the GOP rallied under the co-opted group to come back in 2010 and try to patch the base back together but this I feel, only made the situation worse. It takes a strong leader to keep three very different groups together (libertarians, evangelicals and the business crowd), and because the GOP has a tendency to go with "the next person in line" this has caused a situation where that "next person" (Romney) isn't really strong enough to hold everyone together. Now the evangelicals want the same thing libertarians achieved (in spirit) with the tea party. They sure as hell won't vote for a mormon. Essentially, without a smooth talker, the factions are now looking out for themselves. Evangelicals want their guy, the libertarians are rebelling against the idea that Romney has won before it began because they hate the status quo like that. The moderate and business types are all Romney has left, but since he is a weak candidate to begin with he isn't drawing as many voters as he needs. Thus we are at this impass of Romney achieving a solid win and then a massive turn against him. I would not be surprised if Romney wins the next two states then loses Ohio to Gingrich.Did this answer your question or was this just rambling?
PanzerJaeger
02-08-2012, 21:06
I can only fall back on my earlier theory that the current crop of influential conservative thought leaders want to destroy any candidate with even a remote possibility of defeating the president for economic reasons. What's so amazing is that those same thought leaders were encouraging their supporters to vote for Romney as the 'conservative' choice last cycle. Suddenly Romney went from being the conservative choice even against Huckabee to being a 'liar without convictions'. If anything, Romney has moved further to the right since '08, but these talkers have maligned him to such an extent that a rational examination of his positions is beyond most Rush listener's ability at this point.
The same group is also systematically purging the party of any dissent under the much despised 'RINO' acronym. Any deviation from the rigid social conservative ideology that has been created in the blogosphere is attacked as heretical. They're driving the Wall Street business crowd out, the Rockefeller moderates, and the small government libertarians - the thinkers. The intellectual base of the conservative movement - now resentfully known as 'the establishment' - has been completely marginalized. (What is amazing is that today's GOP establishment were yesterday's Reagan warriors.)
'Conservative' used to be starting point, a side to err on, a perspective - esstentially, a lense through which to analyze contemporary issues. Now it has become a set of very concrete dictates that demand complete loyalty of thought.
The party is more rural, more religious, older, and less educated than it has been in many years. Not coincidentally, it has become far less ideas-driven and far more reactionary. Nobody is talking about a conservative vision for the 21st century. It's all about how awful Obama is. You know something has gone horribly wrong when 'moderate' is now a pejorative in conservative circles.
It is all fairly transparent from the outside looking in. How anyone could consider Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum more conservative than Mitt Romney is beyond me, but it makes complete sense inside the echo chamber. They all fail the same litmus tests, but somehow last cycle's conservative choice against McCain is this cycle's McCain. Redstate, Fox News, and Clear Channel are destroying the party.
I think and hope this will be another speed bump for Romney. He represents what is left of the reality-based GOP, what used to be a great silent majority within the party. We shall see how much of it remains.
It is all fairly transparent from the outside looking in.
Not to me, not at all—thank you for your analysis. I was seriously gobsmacked when I read the news this morning.
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2012, 00:34
PJ, I want to say more but I won't get home for another 6 hours so I will just limit myself to saying that the GOP has not really had any "thinkers" backing it for a while, at least not of the conservative kind. If I remember correctly Buckley had more than a few disagreements with the neoconservatives before he died. Since Reagan, the GOP has been a hodge podge of various groups united under a theme of conservatism with policies that dont support their rhetoric. I will elaborate further later.
Just a little pullout here....
If anything, Romney has moved further to the right since '08, but these talkers have maligned him to such an extent that a rational examination of his positions is beyond most Rush listener's ability at this point. Studies have shown that Rush listeners are among the best informed (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics). Just bear that in mind while preaching from your soapbox. :wink:
Many primary voters, and myself aren't satisfied with any of the candidates. Romney has pretty much had frontrunner status since McCain lost, but he fails to appeal to or connect with many of the GOP voters. Basically what we've been seeing is a sizeable chunk of GOP voters frantically running from one "not Romney" to the next.... Perry, Gingrich, Paul, and now Santorum. Unfortunately all of these are also flawed candidates and none to this point have been able to endure the scrutiny that comes with being a serious contender. Perry was an abysmal debater, Gingrich couldn't get past his own ego, Paul has too much baggage to articulate here, and Santorum is too much of a social con for an election which will hinge on the economy (not to mention his big government tendencies).
I could live with a Romney nomination and I feel confident that he could make a much better president than Obama (not that it'd be much of an achievement). Romney's problem will be generating excitement. His past flip flops indicate he's more a politician of opportunity than one of conviction and he's weakest on one of the best issues with which to attack Obama- his unpopular healthcare law.
I can support Romney, I just think it's disappointing that he's the best we can come up with. :no:
CountArach
02-09-2012, 06:52
I am beyond confused. Can any Republican on the Org explain what happened last night? As an outsider looking in, I find the course of this primary strange to the point of absurdity.
Is Romney really that unpopular within the base?
Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/five-paths-forward-for-g-o-p-nomination/), as ever, provided a possible explanation when outlining post-Florida what could happen in the campaign.
Interpretation No. 3: Anybody but Romney? Certainly Not Newt.
What Happens Next — The Short Version: Support for Mr. Gingrich erodes more than support for Mr. Romney builds. There is a limited window of opportunity for Mr. Santorum, but he needs considerable luck to take advantage of it. Mr. Romney probably wins, perhaps fairly easily, but there is some drama along the way.
What Happens Next — The Long Version:. Mr. Gingrich experiences a significant decline in national polls and does poorly in the caucus states. He gets no more support from his “super PAC,” and his campaign becomes increasingly unfocused.
However, Republicans are not necessarily ready to gravitate to Mr. Romney. Instead, they give Mr. Santorum another look, and he is buoyed by some modest success like a strong finish in the Minnesota caucus or a win in the Missouri beauty contest primary.
Mr. Santorum is competitive in several Super Tuesday states, including Ohio, and proves to be a reasonably strong match for Mr. Romney in the debates. Mr. Gingrich is not eager to drop out, but some of his supporters gravitate toward Mr. Santorum as he comes to be seen as more viable, perhaps forcing the issue.
Still, Mr. Santorum faces some considerable disadvantages: he lacks resources, and is always running from behind in the delegate count. He has a chance to win if everything breaks just right, but more likely concedes after a failed last stand in a state like Texas or Wisconsin on April 3. Mr. Romney takes some limited damage for the general election, but of the kind that would make a difference only in an extremely close race.
Precedent: In recent nomination races, there has not been a good example of a “third wheel” candidate coming from behind to emerge with the nomination. Instead, this scenario bears more resemblance to the period between about 1968 and 1976, when the nomination process was in a transitional phase. Jimmy Carter in 1976, for instance, was not an ideal Democratic nominee, but prevailed after “anybody but Carter” efforts fizzled. The closest thing to an exception is probably 1972, when George McGovern came from behind to win the Democratic nomination, but Mr. McGovern took considerable advantage of the party’s new delegate allocation rules, which he had helped to design.
The Evidence For: Mr. Santorum’s favorability ratings are fairly good, and in some ways he could complicate Mr. Romney’s calculus. On the electability front, for instance, Mr. Santorum has the best net favorability rating among general election voters, although it is still in net-negative territory. And Mr. Santorum is a reasonably good debater who has less baggage than Mr. Gingrich.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gingrich has a number of clear flaws as a candidate. (One reason that Mr. Romney has been able to limit Mr. Gingrich’s momentum is because of his monetary advantages, but another is because things like Mr. Gingrich’s associations with Freddie Mac are inherently hard to defend.) Mr. Gingrich’s campaign is not terribly well-organized and is unlikely to do well in the caucus states, perhaps creating an opening for Mr. Santorum.
The Evidence Against: This scenario depends on the notion that there is a strong desire for an “anybody but Romney” candidate — and the evidence for that is mixed. Some polls suggest, for instance, that supporters of Mr. Santorum prefer Mr. Romney to Mr. Gingrich, and that supporters of Mr. Gingrich prefer Mr. Romney to Mr. Santorum. In the Florida exit polls, 65 percent of voters said that they would be satisfied with Mr. Romney as their nominee, and 77 percent said that they liked Mr. Romney personally.
Mr. Santorum, meanwhile, was unable to take advantage of his momentum after a strong showing in Iowa, despite some concerted effort by some key Republican constituencies to get behind him. One issue that Mr. Santorum faces is that he is not of the Tea Party generation of Republicans, instead having won his Senate seat in 1994 and having taken a position in the party leadership. Another is that his emphasis, more conservative on social policy than on fiscal policy, cuts somewhat against the mood of the Republican base right now.
Finally, this scenario would be much more plausible if Mr. Gingrich were to drop out and endorse Mr. Santorum, but for the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Gingrich may be unlikely to do so.
Evaluation: This scenario relies on a number of things coming together for Mr. Santorum. None of the individual elements are entirely implausible, but the odds are strongly against his pulling everything together. And during the time that voters might be flipping to Mr. Santorum from Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney would be expanding his delegate advantage, making Mr. Santorum’s path harder.
In other words: Republicans can be split into two camps - either 'Romney' or 'Not Romney'. The 'Not Romney' side have looked to Gingrich thus far, but seeing that Gingrich is falling short of carrying the nomination, they are moving towards Santorum as the electoral alternative to Romney. Santorum was helped in most of those states by demographics, which tend to have a more evangelical skew in their Republican parties, but Colorado was a state which, much like Nevada, has a relatively large Mormon base, making it a strong state for Romney. The fact that Santorum can come out on top there gives some credit to the strength of opposition.
Oh man, this is just precious. James Carville is hilarious and most importantly, he's right on the money.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/carville-republicans/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
(CNN) -- Memo to the Republican Establishment, Part II.
First of all, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I realize it's been 15 days since I've penned (as the Mittster would say) my last memo to you. But you know, with the Super Bowl I have gotten behind and wanted to catch up with you before the Mardi Gras season gets in full swing. Good manners dictate that I convey my most heartfelt congratulations to you for what you did to old Newt in your aggressive ad campaign. I mean, you guys really did him in. As we say in Louisiana, you made minced meat out of that boy.
You rounded up a bunch of Wall Street money and turned it over to the Willie Horton ad guy to destroy one of your own. You boys really crack me up (and I say boys because no females have openly expressed their membership -- as soon as someone steps forward I will be sure to address you appropriately). I don't think we Democrats could come up with something quite so clever. You have accomplished quite a feat.
The problem that you have now is not Newt. It may take a few months, but you will get him under control. Your in-house network -- the boys over at Fox (I'm sorry, Greta, I meant the people over at Fox) -- thought they had wired Newt up to go positive, but they found out it is difficult to control a Tulane man. Don't worry, he just got sucker punched. Soon enough he and all of his "baggage" will be sent packing. Newt is fighting now, but he will come around as I am sure the Koch brothers are in need of a good historian. Get my drift? Newt's post-primary employment is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed in quiet rooms.
You know how it goes, you squish one gnat and you gotta deal with another. Your latest nuisance comes in the form of an anti-contraception activist and 18-point loser, Rick Santorum. I'm not here to tell you how to do your job, but you ought to get your hands on a copy of Ricky boy's book. He's really hung up on birth control pills, huh? Not to mention, he seems to be pretty down on women having jobs outside of the home. That didn't play out too well in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. I highly doubt that he will do well in Pontiac or Phoenix. Also, you should look into that little cyberschooling arrangement he pulled off. But I've said enough. I know you don't need my help in disposing of this loser.
The problem you have now is the same problem you've had all along. It's the Mittster -- and it's a big problem. He can't seem to go 72 hours without blowing himself up again. The commentariat will not stop talking about the Mittster's comment on poor people and how it may drive away independents.
Come on fellas, we all know what will happen here: Those old Democrats will take that remark and use it the last week of the campaign to drive up "urban turnout." Here's to hoping poor people don't vote. Come to think of it, thanks to the Republican-created financial crisis, there are a lot more poor people in rural and suburban America causing problems for you. In fact, you boys created a slew of poor people, didn't you? But we will get back to that in late October.
Frankly, y'all are going to have a dickens of a time figuring out how to deal with the Hispanic vote. Karl Rove, you and 43 worked hard to be inclusive on immigration reform, and now the Mittster has the most idiotic and extreme position on it. My sources tell me that even Governor Jeb is ticked at the Mittster.
Because, after all, you know those dirty old Democrats will take your position and use it against you. I guess that's just what modern politics has become, people running against a stated position. Remember the good ole Willie Horton days when politics was clean and fun? However, you shouldn't worry yourselves too much about the Mittster's current immigration imbecility. Clearly, it can't be hard to get him to change his mind.
But be forewarned, I will probably go on CNN and run my mouth, talking about the 782nd time Willard has changed his position. (781, 782, who's counting after 363?) Just call me a washed-up old partisan Democrat and forget about trying to defend him. You can't.
So guys, this is where you are. You are going to nominate a politically detached candidate who speaks French, has Swiss bank accounts, lives in Massachusetts, went to Harvard, whose daddy was born in Mexico. Way to go! I'll check back with you boys after Mardi Gras. In the meantime, laissez les bons temps rouler! (It's French. Ask the Mittster to translate.)
Btw: (That's how young people do P.S. -- thought I would give you a heads-up) Was I the only person who noticed your turnout collapsed in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and everywhere else? You better get Dick Armey to raise a bunch of polluter money and stoke up those tea partiers.
PanzerJaeger
02-10-2012, 06:15
Just a little pullout here.... Studies have shown that Rush listeners are among the best informed (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics). Just bear that in mind while preaching from your soapbox. :wink:
Well I wouldn't really consider being able to name the House majority party and the Secretary of State great guages of political informedness, but that is beside the point. I am not saying that Rush listeners are uninformed as to the basic elements of contemporary politics. I am saying that their understanding of those elements is shaped by very rigid dictates that have grown ever more arbitrary. What Rush says is conservative, and the populist, anti-establishment turn the party has taken means that a lot of the more traditional counterweights to his brand of conservatism have been labeled as RINOs and purged. As I said before, conservatism has ceased being a perspective and instead has become a set of incontrovertible rules. Youtube some old Firing Line clips and then compare them to Rush's show or Hannity's. The party could use some more diversity of thought.
I, too, lament the fact that Romney is the best option we've got. One of the reasons that is the case, though, is because of silly litmus tests (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/14/rush-limbaugh-slams-mitch-daniels-cpac/) Rush and some other high profile conservative media personalities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZUOcbCDz4g) have set up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfiUDW-5d7M&feature=related). You end up with candidates like Bachmann who check all the boxes but are hopelessly unprepared to govern while strong candidates are written of due to ideological impurity.
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2012, 07:55
The party could use some more diversity of thought.
The reason why this is a problem is because the GOP has been very anti-intellectualism for a while. Hence why I said, there are no real thinkers in the party today.
You got Tweedledee and Tweedledum and the uber Christian. There is also the Libertarian dude, but the people who listen to Rush are so closed to any sort of outside thinking, they can't even accept a guy who wants to dismantle the entire Federal government because heaven forbid the military gets reduced. It has been getting worse since at least the early 90s.
The GOP needs a purge somehow. Once the real candidates are available, people like Johnson or Pawlenty or even guys like Ross Perot. Get back to the good stuff, letting individuals solve problems among themselves. Not this stupid religious crap that creates crazy candidates like Bachmann or Santorum.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-10-2012, 08:46
A nice bit on election coverage:
http://www.jamesbowman.net/diaryDetail.asp?hpID=529
The reason why this is a problem is because the GOP has been very anti-intellectualism for a while. Hence why I said, there are no real thinkers in the party today.
Who are the real liberal thinkers? <--an actual question. I only have like 4 websites that I've found remotely reliable for worthwhile stuff. Would like a few more.
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2012, 09:05
Who are the real liberal thinkers? <--an actual question. I only have like 4 websites that I've found remotely reliable for worthwhile stuff. Would like a few more.
There really isn't that many liberal thinkers either. On the grand scale of things though democrats are really just republican lites, since as you have said before, people agree on the basics.
Paul Krugman is probably the most well known, but there are many problems with him. For the most part liberals just like to take inspiration from FDR and JFK's philosophy (liberalism 4.1) according to that one article you linked a while back.
Point is the the GOP leadership isn't driven by people like Buckley or Goldwater, they listen to the likes of people like John Yoo or Roger Ailes. Smart people, but god awful in what they preach. They are not thinkers in the sense of exploring ideas for the betterment of society, they are preachers of an ideology fine tuned to cover up shady business.
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2012, 14:22
Republicans are buying the line that they are being fed about Romney not being a good candidate. I havnt had a northeastern spokesman for Republican values in a long time. And he has real private sector sucess! The line that he is no good is bunk and the weakness of it makes me question the ability of GOP voters to stand athwart popular liberal talking points.
The line that [Romney] is no good is bunk and the weakness of it makes me question the ability of GOP voters to stand athwart popular liberal talking points.
I think it's premature to blame Teh Libruls for much of anything. Romney just lost three major states to Santorum in one night. The voters who handed Romney this rebuke were not Democrats, leftists, liberals, socialists or Freemasons. They were the Republican base.
We can flog the evils of liberals and liberalism in a few months. This is more of a domestic dispute, and a puzzling one.
Askthepizzaguy
02-10-2012, 14:51
Concur, the liberals haven't had much to do with this freak show yet. But believe you me, we're laughing our butts off so far. Then again, Bush got elected so it's sort of a nervous laughter, like we had towards Palin. Fortunately we dodged that bullet fired from a helicopter.
... we're laughing our butts off so far...
As you should be. This so far has been the weakest group of GOP presidential hopefuls as far as I remember. They make Bob Dole look strong.
A look at the math (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/why_the_republican_primary_will_not_end_anytime_soon.html):
We know the race will last to April thanks to pure, heartless algebra [I think the author means "arithmetic" — Lemur]. The 2012 Republican nominee will need to win 1,144 delegates. The number of delegates semi-officially pledged to candidates as I type this out: 161. The number of delegates that will be pledged by the end of Super Tuesday, one month from now: 662. Rick Santorum could take every single delegate away from Mitt Romney (Good luck in Massachusetts!) and be barely halfway to the nomination. [...]
Only when Texas votes, on April 3, will so many delegates have been awarded that the also-rans might not be able to catch up.-edit-
And now Santorum is polling ahead of Romney nationally (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/10/looks_like_theres_a_new_gop_frontrunner.html). [I note, however, that those two polls came from PPP and Gallup, neither of which is as skilled at capturing the Republican base as Ramussen, which is kinda the gold standard for GOP polling.]
a completely inoffensive name
02-10-2012, 19:37
To be honest, Romney has a good chance of winning Michigan and Arizona. If he does, that momentum will probably carry him through super Tuesday. March 6th, will most likely decide Romney the victor simply because all the states are in his favor for various reasons. Virginia only has Romney and Paul on the ballot.
Strike For The South
02-10-2012, 20:57
I may just go and vote for Santorum in the primary and then actively start campaigning for him
I want him to say these things to a bigger audience
I don't understand his appeal. Its always been my impression that Santorum was only popular with a small, radical, kind of of extremist base. The idea that he might have this much support for his hate-mongering ways really bothers me. People talk about Ron Paul being a Racist (who knows, he might be) but Santorum is just the very definition of bigot.
Santorum is not Mitt Romney. That alone is a very strong catalyst to propel Santorum's campaign.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2012, 00:38
Santorum is not Mitt Romney. That alone is a very strong catalyst to propel Santorum's campaign.
Sad, but true. And with Santorum, the GOP would move from a 50/50 shot at victory to a Goldwater style catastrophe. At least with Goldwater, though, one could claim to have voted on principle. :shame:
Sad, but true. And with Santorum, the GOP would move from a 50/50 shot at victory to a Goldwater style catastrophe. At least with Goldwater, though, one could claim to have voted on principle. :shame:
Yup. The good news is that this is a good way for the ultracons to blow out their steam and not bother with extreme candidates for the next 50 years. Four more years of Obama is not a bad price to pay for that. In 2016 the real GOP contenders will step out to challenge Hillary.
PanzerJaeger
02-11-2012, 04:42
Yup. The good news is that this is a good way for the ultracons to blow out their steam and not bother with extreme candidates for the next 50 years. Four more years of Obama is not a bad price to pay for that. In 2016 the real GOP contenders will step out to challenge Hillary.
Indeed. If Obama wins a second term, I think we'll see a much higher caliber of candidates in 2016. It would almost be cathartic for the party. There are a lot of great pols out there with the potential to more clearly articulate a conservative vision for the country and bring together the disparate constituencies that make up the base of the party plus appeal to fiscally-minded independents in a way that none of the current crop can do.
In other news, Romney embraced his record in Massachusetts in a great speech at CPAC (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/mitt_romney_i_am_severely_conservative.html); that is, that he governed according to conservative principles in the most liberal state in the Union. I've been hoping he would defend his record and not run from it for a while. It is much easier to build a purely conservative record governing Texas than it is Massachusetts. As we saw with GWB, though, that doesn't necessarily prepare a politician for governing a much more divided nation. His time in the trenches up there should be viewed as a strength, not a liability.
Oh, and Rush mocked him (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/limbaugh_ive_never_heard_anybody_say_im_severely_conservative.html) over semantics.
Crazed Rabbit
02-11-2012, 06:35
Didn't we have Mitch Daniels thinking about running? Didn't we have T-Paw in this race? I know we had Gary Johnson.
How did we end up with Mitt, Gingrich, and Santorum? Good grief.
Oh, right. Because a bunch of folks got super excited about freaking Bachmann and other Tea Party candidates who were good at pandering but have never actually governed.
:wall:
And Santorum promises to be puritanical in the name of freedom and gets votes.
This nomination managed to weed out all the competent candidates.
CR
I don't get it. Santorum is garunteed to get shot down by everyone who's not a social conservative, and even by a lot of social conservatives who just aren't that extreme. Obama vs. Santorum is not a contest at all.
to quote Bill Maher from his show last night:
"just wait until people start googling 'Santorum'"
This nomination managed to weed out all the competent candidates.
In fairness, I believe Romney would make a moderate and more-than-competent executive; he's just terrible at campaigning. Tone-deaf, I suppose. He reminds me in many respects of George H. W. Bush in this respect.
Can he clinch the nomination? Most likely. Does he excite anyone? Not really. Would he be held hostage to a Republican congress that would not trust him or back him? Most likely.
ICantSpellDawg
02-12-2012, 04:05
I hope that there wasn't a substantial amount of vote rigging in NH. After a re-count, I hope we are still on top.
"Chairman Webster told reporters there were less than 200 votes in Washington County and he doubted that including them would have changed the outcome." - That makes me feel better about it, less like it was robbed. There were only 2900 votes anyway for the guy who won.
Centurion1
02-12-2012, 05:14
quick and very serious question (though i am drunk right now)
does anyone think romney is not a GOOD man?
quick and very serious question (though i am drunk right now) does anyone think romney is not a GOOD man?
quick and very serious answer (i'm also slightly inebriated). I think he's a damn liar, that alone puts him on the naughty list in my book.
quick and very serious question (though i am drunk right now)
does anyone think romney is not a GOOD man?
Personally I'm not sure. I have a friend who thinks he's evil. She's mormon, and she told me that Romney said in a speech that he doesn't want people to judge him by his religion, so she's not going to either. I thought that was funny.
Strike For The South
02-13-2012, 16:55
n
quick and very serious question (though i am drunk right now)
does anyone think romney is not a GOOD man?
Are you about to sleep with him?
Looks like I am not the only person concerned that a Rommny Presidency will be castrated and hamstrung by a GOP congress that will expect obedience to doctrine (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html).
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 00:28
Looks like I am not the only person concerned that a Rommny Presidency will be castrated and hamstrung by a GOP congress that will expect obedience to doctrine (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html).
You are a die-hard, lifelong Democratic voter. Of course you are concerned by this.
You are a die-hard, lifelong Democratic voter.
A few thoughts:
The author of that article served in the Bush 43 administration. Is he also a "die-hard" Democrat?
Attacking the person instead of the idea is a sure sign you're run out of intelligent things to say.
I'm a lifelong, registered independent, which means most of my life I haven't been able to participate in primaries. So your ad hominem is not only poor form, but inaccurate, or at least incomplete.
Furthermore, from a political perspective, note that the house Republicans are polling at 17% popularity. If President Romney is hostage to their whims, how well do you think his first term will play out?
To put it in terms you might be able to understand, imagine that President Clinton can't muster the Dems in congress to do much of anything unless he abases himself to Al Sharpton and gives him everything he wants. It's not a good scenario.
Looks like I am not the only person concerned that a Rommny Presidency will be castrated and hamstrung by a GOP congress that will expect obedience to doctrine (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html).
Or he could govern like Michigan's current governor who completely ignores the ultra-right and finds support with the moderates and some democrats. Of course this is all moot since Romney will not be president.
Of course this is all moot since Romney will not be president.
I would not bet money on him becoming President, but that doesn't mean it could not happen. Let's say the Greek debt crisis blows up, and congress refuses to raise the debt limit, and other unforeseen calamities emerge. If the economy takes a sharp turn downward, it's anybody's game.
Just because things are looking grim for Romney does not mean current trends will continue.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 04:48
Lemur, you use the phrase "Ad-Hominem" too much. My statement was not a personal attack. It was a reminder to the audience that you have, most likely, not voted for a Republican more than a handful of times in your entire life (if ever). I said "Democratic Voter" for a reason. You tend, strongly, to vote democratic. If a Republican like Mitt Romney can't get your vote, you are not a middle of the road voter. This statement was not an "attack", either. some people might be worried about this, I would take the worry from middle of the road voters, but you generally post articles which attack whoever the presumptive nominee is at the time.
You are the enemy in the political struggle. You pretend to consider Republican candidates and then find some excuse to become their mortal enemy. I was a registered "conservative" up until this year. I wouldn't say that someone was "attacking" me for saying that I have always been a Republican voter.
I'm sure that the article is great, but you present yourself like someone who is on the fence, but you are not and never have been since I have been on these forums. It strikes me as disingenuous.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 04:52
Anyway, I could vote for Rick Santorum, no problem. I have a feeling that the ticket will be Romney/Santorum. I doubt that the GOP would nominate someone who couldn't even make a play at Florida. Or someone with absolutely no executive experience. On the plus side, Santorum would keep us steady in blue collar states and he is as authentic a conservative Senator as I have seen. And he is no Sarah Palin. This guy is a ready-out-of-the-box, forged in steel, bright Washington insider. He doesn't come from the distant woods after having been a glorified mayor with a sweet rack.
And I think Romney can play for California. He is the kind of guy they elect for things in California, and if the economy bottoms out in a big way over the summer, that State could be in play.
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2012, 05:16
Anyway, I could vote for Rick Santorum, no problem. I have a feeling that the ticket will be Romney/Santorum. I doubt that the GOP would nominate someone who couldn't even make a play at Florida. Or someone with absolutely no executive experience. On the plus side, Santorum would keep us steady in blue collar states and he is as authentic a conservative Senator as I have seen. And he is no Sarah Palin. This guy is a ready-out-of-the-box, forged in steel, bright Washington insider. He doesn't come from the distant woods after having been a glorified mayor with a sweet rack.
And I think Romney can play for California. He is the kind of guy they elect for things in California, and if the economy bottoms out in a big way over the summer, that State could be in play.
Remember when I used to reply to all your posts with the word "cancer". I think I will start doing that again.
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2012, 05:18
Romney would never put Santorum on the ticket. There are plenty of picks that would appeal to the right without being toxic to the center. I mean, the guy practically writes his own opposition research.
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2012, 05:39
I'm not seeing this castrated romney thing at all...norquist mentions that the president just needs to sign the ryan plan, but surely romney likes the ryan plan himself?
"Attacking the person instead of the idea is a sure sign you're run out of intelligent things to say."
Not really...
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 05:46
Remember when I used to reply to all your posts with the word "cancer". I think I will start doing that again.
Please do. If it keeps you from posting anything else, I'm all for it.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 05:48
Romney would never put Santorum on the ticket. There are plenty of picks that would appeal to the right without being toxic to the center. I mean, the guy practically writes his own opposition research.
Why not? Who is he going to put on? I'd say a Rubio. Ed Rendell would be a good pick, too.
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2012, 05:51
Please do. If it keeps you from posting anything else, I'm all for it.
Yeah, but why you mad tho?
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 05:55
Yeah, but why you mad tho?
I cannot remember a single thing you've written that made me think "hey, he's got a point" or "what an interesting idea, I must learn more about that". I skim every page when I see that you've posted something until I get to a Panzer post, a Lemur post, a Sasaki post, a strike post, an RVG post, CountArach, CR, Don, etc. But your posts? Fodder.
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2012, 06:00
I cannot remember a single thing you've written that made me think "hey, he's got a point" or "what an interesting idea, I must learn more about that". I skim every page when I see that you've posted something until I get to a Panzer post, a Lemur post, a Sasaki post, a strike post, an RVG post, CountArach, CR, Don, etc. But your posts? Fodder.
Well that sounds like a cool story bro.
EDIT: Funny how I am in the HOF, and you are not. Idk, maybe I would have more respectable posts if I insulted Lemur and touted bigotry like you. :(
"Attacking the person instead of the idea is a sure sign you're run out of intelligent things to say."
Not really...
Feel free to expand on that partial negation. I posted an article by David Frum, to which ICantSpell could only say, "Yeah, but you're a Dem, so what you say doesn't count." He later expanded that to include "enemy," after declaring that ad hominem is no fair.
At least you appear to have read the linked article, so you're up.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 06:08
You may have guessed at this point that I didn't vote for you
a completely inoffensive name
02-14-2012, 06:12
You may have guessed at this point that I didn't vote for you
Interesting, go on. How did it make you feel that a young kid who was learning fractions when you joined the org was acclaimed as a positive contributor and your impenetrable soliloquies of illogical ramblings went unrecognized?
I am just wondering why you still mad tho.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2012, 06:25
Feel free to expand on that partial negation. I posted an article by David Frum, to which ICantSpell could only say, "Yeah, but you're a Dem, so what you say doesn't count." He later expanded that to include "enemy," after declaring that ad hominem is no fair.
At least you appear to have read the linked article, so you're up.
I wasn't attacking the idea, usually ad hominem is an attack on an idea by attacking the man. What I did was express my irritation at the fair and balanced masquerade. It doesn't mean that you don't post great stuff from great sources. Take it as a personal insult only to an extent.
I wasn't attacking the idea, usually ad hominem is an attack on an idea by attacking the man. What I did was express my irritation at the fair and balanced masquerade.
Two thoughts:
When you ignore the ideas expressed, but comment on the person posting them, you are engaging in a textbook-definition ad hominem (John may say the sky is blue, but John is a communist, so John does not know what he's talking about). I'd like it better if you addressed the ideas and attacked me personally; at least that way there's something to respond to beyond "nuh-uh." You know, mix it up a little.
As for fair and balanced, it's true, I could not vote for any of the current GOP candidates under the current conditions. That said, I have skin in the game, since one of them may every well wind up being my president, and I am perfectly capable of horse-race commentary, as I have an interest in how this process plays out. And as you note, I generally try to find good sources and not post anything from partisan mouthpieces.
I'm not attached to either of the major parties. Maybe I have a too-long perspective, but the Dems were the party of segregation a mere fifty years ago, while the Republicans were the pragmatic progressives. Things change. I'd be fine with the Whigs coming back, or an entirely new party. As I've expressed to my real-life friends, I have chronic problems with the Dems, but terminal problems with the Repubs, at least as things stand now. So for me, any election is, as Xiahou is fond of saying, choosing the leper with the most fingers.
-edit-
Polls show Santorum leading Romney by as much as 15 points in Michigan (http://earlyreturns.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/early-returns-20/53-post-gazette-staff/4024-daily-santorum-winning-in-michigan). Yowza.
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2012, 07:35
Why not? Who is he going to put on? I'd say a Rubio. Ed Rendell would be a good pick, too.
I think Rubio is almost the prohibitive favorite for any GOP nominee at this point. All the stars line up for him - solid conservative credentials, charisma, good looks, compelling life story, Hispanic ethnicity, geography, and a short voting record. It's almost too perfect. He's also been very careful to thread the needle during the current civil war within the GOP. He's one of the few high profile GOP politicians who has both grassroots TEA Party support and the approval of the establishment. (Chris Christie was walking the same tight rope, but with his full fledged support of Romney, he seems to have jumped firmly into the establishment camp. He would be a good choice too.) I could almost see Rubio reading the tea leaves this cycle and declining in order to go for the whole thing in '16. He'll be more experienced at that point, but his record will not be large enough to hang around his neck (unless he comes down on the wrong side of a rare, defining Iraq-type vote).
There are plenty of others, though. Susana Martinez (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAFWdlzlZw) would be an excellent pick, and my preferred option even over Rubio. She doesn't have the instant magnetism Sarah Palin had when she was selected, but she would hold up far better under scrutiny. She's well read, intelligent, and articulate. She'll also have some governing experience under her belt, and from what I've read, she's been a very capable administrator, which if you couldn't already tell, is pretty important to me. And like Rubio, being a popular pol from a swing state doesn't hurt. (Gary Johnson, also of New Mexico, would have been a great pick to retain the Ron Paul vote, but he's gone Libertarian now.) In my opinion, Martinez represents what the GOP should be about in the 21st century; that is, achieving diversity by dropping all the wedge issues and racial dog whistles while still maintaining the core principles of fiscal responsibility, smaller, less intrusive government, economic prosperity, and individual liberty that transcend racial, ethnic, and gender subgroups.
John Thune would be a decent, safe pick. Tim Pawlenty has the same kind of Midwestern, blue collar background and socially conservative appeal that Santorum claims, just in a much more moderate and palatable form. He's also got a strong record and a steady (if boring) persona. Moving South, Bob McDonnell has been jockeying for a VP spot since he was sworn in as governor of Virginia. Nikki Haley might be looking for a ticket out of South Carolina after coming out so strongly for Romney. Her reputation in SC might be tainted now with the Tea Party types, but she's still popular among the national GOP. Jindal would be an even better pick, in my opinion. Unlike Haley, he has a far more substantial governing record, and it has been incredibly good, especially for Louisiana.
My gov, Bill Haslam, was a fairly early endorser of Romney. Like McDonnell and a lot of what I call the 'new' GOP, he has emphasized jobs and long term economic prosperity over social wedge issues (although he's on the right side of all those issues in terms of palatability to the base). I don't hear much speculation about him in terms of a possible VP pick, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because he's white, from a solidly red state, and isn't particularly charismatic. He'd be a safe choice though, and would go a long way in the South.
Those are just the ones that I could think of off the top of my head. All of them come with far less baggage than Santorum, who is, quite frankly, uniquely suited to appeal to the very narrow base of the party that comes out for primaries and absolutely no one else. He would add nothing to the general election ticket but liabilities.
Strike For The South
02-14-2012, 07:53
I cannot remember a single thing you've written that made me think "hey, he's got a point" or "what an interesting idea, I must learn more about that". I skim every page when I see that you've posted something until I get to a Panzer post, a Lemur post, a Sasaki post, a strike post, an RVG post, CountArach, CR, Don, etc. But your posts? Fodder.
Vindication, sweet vindication.
Crazed Rabbit
02-14-2012, 07:58
Lemur - Fair enough about Romney's competence. He's not the most conservative, though I could definitely vote for him.
I don't see the problem with Norquist's comments. Presidents are way to powerful as it is.
Furthermore, from a political perspective, note that the house Republicans are polling at 17% popularity.
Somehow I doubt the Congress as a whole is any better.
This guy is a ready-out-of-the-box, forged in steel, bright Washington insider.
Good grief. I will not vote for any ticket with Santorum on it. As PJ says, the dems could use his own words, in context, to make him unpalatable to a majority of America. I'm beginning to get rather sick of social conservatives. (EDIT - I mean candidates)
CR
CountArach
02-14-2012, 08:35
Keep things cool guys, things can get heated, so just take a deep breath :bow:
CountArach
02-14-2012, 08:50
When looking at the polling, like those in Michigan, it is worth remembering that a more accurate representation will come within the next few days as the 'bounce' that Santorum gets is likely to be reduced and brought back to a more reasonable level, much like gingrich's did after Florida. Romney's support has been the most consistent, but at the same time it really hasn't grown. This is probably because his appeal to the base of the party is far from desirable (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/rick-santorum-mitt-romney-polling-elections-2012_n_1273709.html):
Of concern for Romney, the Pew poll shows him struggling among the conservative groups that make up the Republican base. Among self-identified conservatives, Santorum leads Romney by an 11 percent margin, 36 percent to 25 percent. Among Tea Party supporters, Santorum leads 42 percent to 23 percent.
[...]
Worse still for Romney, the survey contains signs that Tea Party opinion of him has worsened over the last few months on two key issues: his conservative credentials and his ideological consistency. Since November, the percentage of Tea Party supporters telling Pew that they do not believe Romney is a strong Republican has grown from 41 percent to 68 percent, and the percent saying Romney does not take consistent positions on the issues has grown from 40 percent to 56 percent.
The Pew survey also shows evidence of Santorum's appeal to evangelical conservatives and Catholics within the Republican party. Though Romney leads Santorum among white mainline Protestants, Santorum leads Romney among white evangelical Protestants (41 percent to 23 percent) and white Catholics (37 percent to 27 percent). In a Pew survey last month, Romney and Santorum were tied at 22 percent among white evangelicals, while Romney led Santorum 33 percent to 17 percent among white Catholics.
It will be interesting to see where Santorum goes from here. Though he has an exceptionally well-organised campaign and is far more appealing to 'definite' voters (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/down-in-michigan-polls-romney-needs-to-find-his-base/), he lags a long way behind in terms of getting money together. It could well be a classic money vs organisation race, which will be interesting to say the least.
In terms of the electability argument for Romney, it should be noted that Santorum's unfavourable rating is much, much lower than Romney's. That same Pew survey has him at 33/36 favourable/unfavourable compared to Romney's 32/49. A bigger problem is that 14% have 'never heard of him', which he doesn't have the money to counteract. Interesting times...
I skim every page when I see that you've posted something until I get to a Panzer post, a Lemur post, a Sasaki post, a strike post, an RVG post, CountArach, CR, Don, etc. But your posts? Fodder.
Nice, still not considered part of the SuperFriends https://i.imgur.com/h9Up3.gif
The Onion, as per usual, nails it (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep,27371/):
New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct
WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.
According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.
"Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate," said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. "Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus."
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2012, 20:39
It's hardly a Republican phenomenon (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-11/opinion/bennett.whither.moderate.democrats_1_democratic-party-reagan-democrat-democratic-leadership-council?_s=PM:OPINION). The Democrats went through their own expunging process that started during the Bush years. Clinton versus Obama was in many ways the ultimate coup for the liberal base of the party.
PanzerJaeger
02-14-2012, 21:19
Except that it hasn't. If Obama loses this election, he'll be remembered as a guy who lost to congress even if he won the election. Its ironic, because in restrospect I think Clinton could have pushed more 'liberal' stuff through congress.
Probably, yes. That's solely due to Obama's own extremism and political naivety during his first two years, though. It's funny how well triangulation works and how quickly people forget the recent past. Obama has positioned himself as a centrist these last two years out of political necessity, not any new found genuine moderation. He was nominated by a liberal base and took office with a decades-old laundry list of liberal pet projects to get done. He foolishly wasted his political capital on that monstrosity of a healthcare bill during the height of the economic downturn and has had to play the great uniter ever since to save his own skin. If the GOP goes with a Santorum type figure who not only loses spectacularly but also brings down the House, we'll see the real Obama return in 2013.
I may be giving Clinton too much credit here, but I think she would have more fully addressed the economic crisis instead of using it to push through an ancillary agenda. That, in turn, would have negated the enormous backlash that cost the party the House in 2010 and may have given her more leeway to get things done down the line. Plus, she's simply a more seasoned politician. I think she would have managed the healthcare push far better if and when it the time was right for it.
But that's the great tragedy/triumph of extremism in American politics. It usually accomplishes far less than consensus-focused moderation. Obama's extremism united the GOP and independents against him, costing him his last two years in office and a large portion of his governing agenda. The GOP's turn towards extremism may just cost them the chance to end Obama's extremism.
Kralizec
02-14-2012, 21:32
The Onion, as per usual, nails it (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep,27371/):
New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct
WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.
According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.
"Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate," said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. "Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus."
I read that yesterday; pretty funny.
OT, since when do you have to pay to read the Onion after so many views?
a completely inoffensive name
02-15-2012, 08:45
fivethirtyeight is making me cry with their projections.
Arizona has Romney with an 89% chance of winning but the last poll that is registered by fivethiryeight is from Feb 1st. So the number is honestly meaningless.
However, recent polls from Michigan give Santorum a 75% chance of winning the state, despite Romney's dad governing the place. :(
Not surprisingly Gingrich has a 74% chance of winning his Georgia peach but he is also neck and neck with Romney in Ohio.
Can someone tell me what happens with Romney manages to lose Michigan and Ohio?
EDIT: From what I can tell, Romney only has 3 out of 10 Super Tuesday states that can be said to be locked in firmly for him. Will March 6th be a disaster for the Republican Party?
ICantSpellDawg
02-15-2012, 13:36
i dont know. What happens when gingrich and santorum lose florida? Romneys midwestern problem can more easily be solved than not being able to play in florida. Paul Ryan for Veep?
gaelic cowboy
02-15-2012, 13:38
Will March 6th be a disaster for the Republican Party?
Beware the ides of March
he would likely need to go say a week later or face a knife on the senate floor.
Columnist argues Santorum may be more electable that Romney (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/romney-more-electable-than-santorum.html).
[T]here are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters – affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous – economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter.
As hard a time as Santorum would have closing the sale among certain moderate quarters, I don’t think it’s sunk in quite how poisoned Romney’s image has become among downscale voters. Coverage of Romney’s wealth, corporate history, and partially released tax situation coincided with, and almost certainly caused, a collapse in his support (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/what-the-battle-over-romneys-wealth-is-really-about-in-one-poll-finding/2012/01/24/gIQAiVMNNQ_blog.html) with white voters with income under $50,000. Republicans have enjoyed great success attracting downscale whites in recent years, but that success has hinged in part on things like not nominating standard-bearers who epitomize everything blue-collar whites distrust about their party.
Indeed, at the moment Romney and Santorum both fare about equally well (http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/13/santorum-catches-romney-in-gop-race/) against Obama.
a completely inoffensive name
02-15-2012, 21:54
Another major shift from fivethirtyeight. Most recent poll has Santorum dominating in Ohio.
Super Tuesday might take down Gingrich if he can't find a win anywhere besides his Georgia.
Dave Mustaine (http://www.musicradar.com/news/live/interview-megadeths-dave-mustaine-talks-guitar-politics-and-todays-music-529703/3) endorses Santorum. But will it be enough to counterbalance Chuck Norris' endorsement of Gingrich?
I love Mustaine's comments on Paul- he describes why Paul can't win perfectly:
"Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it's inert gases, but it's the two percent that's left that will kill you. What that means is that he'll make total sense for a while, and then he'll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we're like the Taliban… I'm sorry, Congressman Paul, but I'm nothing like the Taliban.
As a person, I think Santorum is a good, well-meaning guy. However, I'm still very cool towards him as a candidate. In the senate, he was basically a big-government social-con. I don't really think that's what we need right now.
Dave Mustaine (http://www.musicradar.com/news/live/interview-megadeths-dave-mustaine-talks-guitar-politics-and-todays-music-529703/3) endorses Santorum. But will it be enough to counterbalance Chuck Norris' endorsement of Gingrich?
I love Mustaine's comments on Paul- he describes why Paul can't win perfectly:
"Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it's inert gases, but it's the two percent that's left that will kill you. What that means is that he'll make total sense for a while, and then he'll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we're like the Taliban… I'm sorry, Congressman Paul, but I'm nothing like the Taliban.
As a person, I think Santorum is a good, well-meaning guy. However, I'm still very cool towards him as a candidate. In the senate, he was basically a big-government social-con. I don't really think that's what we need right now.
It's funny that Mustaine correctly identifies Paul's "nutty" ideas as the 2% that can kill you....then what to say about Santorum's positions on sexual liberties?
surely more than 2% worth right there for the mainstream voter....
It's funny that Mustaine correctly identifies Paul's "nutty" ideas as the 2% that can kill you....then what to say about Santorum's positions on sexual liberties?
surely more than 2% worth right there for the mainstream voter....The social conservatism that Santorum peddles has a much larger market than the "We're like the Taliban" statements Paul has uttered. Social conservatives, while certainly not a majority, are a sizable chunk of the electorate- especially in the GOP primary. Statements such as the Taliban example from Paul are toxic to all but the smallest fringe of voters.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-16-2012, 19:14
How much could santorum seriously do in that direction?
If Santorum gets the GOP Nod, he will go down in flames. Mark my words, it will be the most lop-sided Democratic presidential victory in the history of the nation. Santorum is anathema to anyone who might be offended by the idea of living in some theocratic reactionary nightmare.
Still, as unelectable as Santorum might be Ron Paul would fare worse. His ideas actually have a strong potential of ruining our country. Return to gold standard? Seriously? Gut entire federal departments and services? Withdraw from the international arena in an increasingly globalized world? No, it's just not feasible. Ron Paul has plenty of ideas that are pure gold but they come packaged together with so much crap that gold loses its appeal.
Santorum would get social conservatives and the anybody-but-Obama crowd. Unfortunately, there's a lot of overlap in those two groups, and I do not believe he could muster anything resembling a majority.
Romney is more plausible general election candidate, but I worry that he does not excite ... anyone.
I think maybe the only realistic hope for a GOP victory in the '12 Prez election would be an economic meltdown. Maybe I'm being limited, but that's the only likely scenario I can think of.
The GOP really wants me to vote for Obama this year...
The problem is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a somewhat, y'know, relaxed view concerning foreign policy. I think every candidate except him has basically said that attacking Iran is not only justified, it's almost an obligation. Sure, Paul's reasoning and methods might be unorthodox at best, crazy at worst, but at least he doesn't want to bomb the hell out of a country with a population of which the majority is thoroughly westernised because they have an insane regime.
So I speak only from the point of foreign policy. And I'm sorry to say, butto me, anyone supporting a war against Iran simply doesn't know what they're talking about.
I agree with you, actually. The Neo-Nazi association is too much for me to overcome, even though I really like almost everything the man says. Quite truthfully, it is the 2%.
Santorum, however, I am 100% opposed to. If he gets the nod, we'll really see how many crazy reactionary nut-jobs there are in this country--because there's just no way he'll get the independants or ANY of the Democrats, whether they're fans of Obama or not.
I am repeatedly coming to a conclusion Obama is the lesser evil this election cycle. He might be a Marxist devil but he's a devil I know. Santorum is crazy. Ron Paul is crazy. Newt has lost his steam and Romney while a capable administrator imho does not deserve to run this country.
CountArach
02-17-2012, 01:46
I think maybe the only realistic hope for a GOP victory in the '12 Prez election would be an economic meltdown. Maybe I'm being limited, but that's the only likely scenario I can think of.
Nate Silver agrees with you and has created the perfect tool to show it (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html?ref=magazine)
Nate Silver agrees with you and has created the perfect tool to show it (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html?ref=magazine)
A good tool, but it could be improved: their facial expressions should change based on their chances of getting elected.
Nate Silver agrees with you and has created the perfect tool to show it (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html?ref=magazine)In that case, it wouldn't really require an "economic meltdown". If economic growth continued at last year's rate or less, Obama would be in trouble.
The Onion can be counted on to be very, very funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1HkhE7Dk_E
Ah, the age-old problem of music (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/the-obama-album/).
Every four years, the U.S. holds a presidential election, and every four years, musicians ask Republican candidates to stop playing their songs at rallies. This year, so far, Newt Gingrich has been asked by Survivor to stop playing “Eye of the Tiger” and Somali-born musician K’naan has asked Mitt Romney to stop playing “Wavin’ Flag.” In 2011, Tom Petty had Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., stop playing “American Girl.”
Mitt Romney's recent speech in his "home" state, or, "Are you just seeing things you see in Michigan and saying you love them?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbA5RM97DI&feature=youtu.be
a completely inoffensive name
02-22-2012, 00:29
I will follow up that Romney video with a Santorum video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUkbfGYLHFA#t=2m27s
@Lemur: As a great The Band fan, I like the fact that "The Weight" is on Obama's list.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-22-2012, 01:41
I am repeatedly coming to a conclusion Obama is the lesser evil this election cycle. He might be a Marxist devil but he's a devil I know. Santorum is crazy. Ron Paul is crazy. Newt has lost his steam and Romney while a capable administrator imho does not deserve to run this country.
All more or less true. The problem is that if Rommey gets the nod and loses you'll have more nuts next time, if Rommey gets the nod and wins - the gOP goes on as before.
Basically, you have to hope Santorum gets the nod and loses - then the GOP will wake up and electable candidates will through in next time.
gaelic cowboy
02-22-2012, 11:21
All more or less true. The problem is that if Rommey gets the nod and loses you'll have more nuts next time, if Rommey gets the nod and wins - the gOP goes on as before.
Basically, you have to hope Santorum gets the nod and loses - then the GOP will wake up and electable candidates will through in next time.
Maybe that was the plan by the party bigwigs all along then eh.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-22-2012, 12:46
Maybe that was the plan by the party bigwigs all along then eh.
The problem being, Rommey'll win.
If it really was the plan, Rommey would have sat this out.
No, the plan was Rommey or T-Paw, but T-Paw screwed it up.
gaelic cowboy
02-22-2012, 18:47
The problem being, Rommey'll win.
If it really was the plan, Rommey would have sat this out.
No, the plan was Rommey or T-Paw, but T-Paw screwed it up.
The all screwed it up actually when you think about it.
They let various interest groups get whipped up into a frenzy and then they are all surprised when only loons get picked for the ticket.
a completely inoffensive name
02-22-2012, 18:55
No, the plan was Rommey or T-Paw, but T-Paw screwed it up.If the plan was Romney or Pawlenty, why did Pawlenty get no money? Pawlenty would have a been a more reasonable replacement for Gingrich in this race if he stayed, but after Ames, he had zero money and all the attention was on Perry/Bachmann. How did T-Paw screw it up?
All you need to know about the Republican Debates:
https://i.imgur.com/A6CQt.gif
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-23-2012, 16:30
If the plan was Romney or Pawlenty, why did Pawlenty get no money? Pawlenty would have a been a more reasonable replacement for Gingrich in this race if he stayed, but after Ames, he had zero money and all the attention was on Perry/Bachmann. How did T-Paw screw it up?
By quitting after the Iowa Straw Poll - had he stayed ina few more months he would have had plenty of money.
Askthepizzaguy
02-23-2012, 19:43
The way the Republican primary voters are searching frantically for ANYONE else besides these candidates... you could have seen Pawlenty as the front runner by now. Absolutely.
I remember when Santorum, Gingrich, Ron Paul, everyone except Romney was trailing at like 1-3 percent of the polling. They went through Bachmann, Perry, every candidate one by one, and every candidate moved up near or ahead of Romney and was king or queen for the day. Then the light of day made people realize what absolutely worthless numbnuts they all were, and they were each tossed aside one by one, and someone else became the alternative to Romney.
SURELY they would have taken a good, hard look at Tim Pawlenty by now. Possibly would have become "the only sane man" in the room and gotten half of the primary voters on his side by now. He quit too early. He might even be electable. So far as I can recall, there's nothing screamingly repugnant about Tim Pawlenty. That's why he was too boring to shine in a field full of drama queens.
a completely inoffensive name
02-23-2012, 19:59
Huntsman was a reasonable candidateand stayed in, but no one cared about him.
Askthepizzaguy
02-23-2012, 20:12
It's hard to get people to pay attention to you when the rest of the stage is full of rejects from the Jerry Springer show.
Now, if they had tossed out all the Looney Tunes candidates and just had debates between Huntsman and Pawlenty and so forth, and people were forced to pick between not-crazies, you might have had a chance in November. Now, there will be folks voting for Obama just to make sure a nutcase doesn't take over.
I thought this article was pretty astute (http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/23/mitt-romneys-position-on-abortion-in-jus). Romney is obviously a smart, moderate guy who is trying to win over a party that is having an interesting year.
Studying the varying intricacies of [Romney's] positions in hopes of learning what policies he truly believes in eventually reveals that there is not much to learn. Or at least not about Romney. Instead, his campaign is better viewed as a reflection on the contemporary GOP, a talented salesman and analyst's attempt to capture and organize its inconsistencies and internal debates into a single candidate. Studying Romney doesn't tell us a whole lot about Romney. But it does tell us something about the fractured state of the party he's trying to win over.
PanzerJaeger
02-24-2012, 17:57
In contrast to Lemur's attempt to elevate the conversation...
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/417586_656470721066_81500794_33190901_1792661310_n.jpg
Okay, maybe it's just because I'm a small-time history nerd, but this line (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/campaigning-against-the-modern-world/) made me want to shout Oh snap, sister:
"Santorum has one of the finest minds of the 13th century."
aimlesswanderer
02-27-2012, 05:52
Ah, the 1200s, when, according to MTW 1 and 2 at least, there were crusades against them Muslims/anyone not sufficiently Christian, the burning of heretics and witches/people who disagreed with you, massive church corruption and hypocrisy, dodgy papal elections, and even a secretly female Pope. Poor guy, born waaaaaay too late. Where is a time machine when you need it? :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
02-27-2012, 07:53
Just fyi, even if Obama wins the next election he is going to have to take on the newly Republican controlled Senate, who are pumping out very classy advertisements like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbdXUWryXk
rory_20_uk
02-27-2012, 12:26
It's so heartening to see that America's fear of the "Yellow Peril" is still going strong. Time for internment camps again?
~:smoking:
Askthepizzaguy
02-27-2012, 14:22
I must go back and face the peril.
-No, it's too perilous.
Can't I have just a little bit of peril?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-27-2012, 23:23
It's so heartening to see that America's fear of the "Yellow Peril" is still going strong. Time for internment camps again?
~:smoking:
I'm not going to argue against America having an Asian racism problem, but the economic analysis is correct.
So I'm afraid he only gets -0.5 Internets from me for presentation.
Tellos Athenaios
02-27-2012, 23:41
Which is what? That American businesses have a culture of outsourcing everything and the kitchen sink, thus no jobs except for those who can get the MBA to do the outsourcing or the lawyers to do the court cases? That Americans are not productive enough to offset wage differences? That American products are not valuable enough to justify the price markup?
Is any of that actually true?
gaelic cowboy
02-28-2012, 13:02
And there is plenty poor people to work in your factories too what with Mexico being next door, the problem as usual is that they would make profit just not as much as in Asia.
Course it's only now people are realising that the real problem is not losing jobs but skills and resources. You want to make a televison in China you can get all the parts in practically the same city.
You want to make a television in America you can source the high end stuff no problem but the simple stuff like screws nails washers o-rings thats all going or gone and it's very hard to restart. (low margins you see)
Today's Michigan primary. Forgive me father, for I'm about to sin.
*goes to vote for Rick Santorum*
PanzerJaeger
02-28-2012, 16:35
I'm genuinely interested in the rationale behind that decision.
I'm genuinely interested in the rationale behind that decision.
The rationale is simple: out of all possible outcomes of the current election cycle Obama is the least harmful for the country (Gingrich would probably be better but he won't get the nomination). Romney is the only one who can derail Obama. Santorum (imho) is the only one who can derail Romney. Hence, Santorum gets my vote.
It's so heartening to see that America's fear of the "Yellow Peril" is still going strong.
FWIW, the actress who played the sneaky Asian who takes our jobs (DEY DOOK UR JAWBS!) has apologized (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/actress-in-offensive-pete-hoekstra-ad-apologizes-calls-ad-a-mistake/).
-edit-
Good to remember that this is what the winner will be up against. When he wants to rabble-rouse, President 44 is very, very good at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT1516iJ57U
FWIW, the actress who played the sneaky Asian who takes our jobs (DEY DOOK UR JAWBS!) has apologized (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/actress-in-offensive-pete-hoekstra-ad-apologizes-calls-ad-a-mistake/).
Is it racist if I think she's hot?
ICantSpellDawg
02-29-2012, 00:08
Today's Michigan primary. Forgive me father, for I'm about to sin.
*goes to vote for Rick Santorum*
When President Santorum is sworn in next year you are going to rue this post. If you think this is impossible, remind yourself that Bush won 2 terms and Americans are angrier now than most people can remember. You are the architect of your own destruction.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-29-2012, 01:21
When President Santorum is sworn in next year you are going to rue this post. If you think this is impossible, remind yourself that Bush won 2 terms and Americans are angrier now than most people can remember. You are the architect of your own destruction.
Bush won because he was more charismatic, and he ran better campaigns. He was also a better candidate against Gore - maintain that he snapped under 9/11 and would have been remembered very differently were it not for that event.
ICantSpellDawg
02-29-2012, 04:07
Wahoo! RVG, I hope that voting for Santorum for NO REASON feels gross for you. You've compromised yourself for no gain, congrats!
50% and strong, keep the momentum going! This is just what we need going into Super Tuesday.
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2012, 05:02
Wahoo! RVG, I hope that voting for Santorum for NO REASON feels gross for you. You've compromised yourself for no gain, congrats!
50% and strong, keep the momentum going! This is just what we need going into Super Tuesday.
Lol, Romney is at around 41%. And there is still a strong chance he could lose in the delegate count since most of the counties went to Santorum. Romney won because Detroit is big.
Such blindness, my god.
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2012, 08:53
Well in a state that was supposed to be a land side Romney only won 16-18 delegates while Santorum took 12-14 (one congressional district still undecided).
Romney's win in Arizona is not really anything special when no one campaigned there and there is a large mormon population.
Overall, Romney barely saved his ass here. If he lost, then the **** really would have hit the fan. He did the bare minimum to continue pretending he is the frontrunner. At least until Super Tuesday.
PanzerJaeger
02-29-2012, 14:25
The rationale is simple: out of all possible outcomes of the current election cycle Obama is the least harmful for the country (Gingrich would probably be better but he won't get the nomination). Romney is the only one who can derail Obama. Santorum (imho) is the only one who can derail Romney. Hence, Santorum gets my vote.
Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation. :bow:
Well in a state that was supposed to be a land side
That was a media construct, just like much of the hype over Michigan. All the talk about how a loss would effectively end Romney's candidacy was absurd. While Michigan is a blue state, its GOP is very conservative - which explains Romney's win in 2008 over McCain far more than any home state advantage. Michigan was never going to be a cake walk so long as a 'more conservative' alternative was in the race. Romney's win says a lot more about Santorum's self-inflicted wounds in the run-up to the primary (which far exceeded Romney's own gaffes) and organizational weakness than anything else.
I'm probably biased since I support him, but I'm starting to find the whole 'weak' narrative surrounding Romney a bit stale. The campaign has been focused on the general from the outset. Anyone could have guessed that a 'moderate' or even a 'realistic' candidate would have had a difficult slog in the primaries after the metamorphosis of the base over the last three years, especially considering the positions other candidates have been willing to take. Romney built the infrastructure necessary to muscle his way through the primaries and come out on the other side in a position to be viable in the general. Things have certainly been rough, but he has been incredibly disciplined and showed a unique ability to quickly pivot, adapt new strategies, and execute them effectively. I think it says a lot about that discipline that the only major criticism he gets dinged for is for saying things a millionaire might say. 'Out of touch' often translates into 'we cannot find anything substantively wrong with this guy'.
Economic headwinds may make the entire process moot, but if he does secure the nomination, it will be a testament to his administrative and organizational abilities in the face of a populist beast that scared many viable candidates out of the race and skewered many others who got in.
The campaign has been focused on the general from the outset.
Yeah, I don't really understand why candidates do this. Didn't work so well for Hillary Clinton, either. Running as the inevitable candidate is a dicey bit of business.
I think Romney would have been better served by openly admitting he needed to win a primary first, before pivoting to the general. It just does not seem to go well for inevitable candidates who run for the general from the outset.
if [Romney] does secure the nomination, it will be a testament to his administrative and organizational abilities in the face of a populist beast that scared many viable candidates out of the race and skewered many others who got in.
There's truth to this. He is brave to run in a Tea Party kinda year, and the fact that he's rolling up victories is impressive, although I would be interested to see how he fares when he can't outspend his opponent by between 2-1 (Michigan) and 20-1 (Florida).
This cycle's line-up of candidates is nearly as bad as the dems in '04. Santorum is a religious nut, Romney is an unlikable robot who seems to hate people. Enjoy four more years of Obama.
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2012, 18:55
That was a media construct, just like much of the hype over Michigan. All the talk about how a loss would effectively end Romney's candidacy was absurd. While Michigan is a blue state, its GOP is very conservative - which explains Romney's win in 2008 over McCain far more than any home state advantage. Michigan was never going to be a cake walk so long as a 'more conservative' alternative was in the race.
Idk, Panzer, I think you are forgetting about Huckabee. He was clearly the "conservative" in 2008 but he got crushed by McCain and Romney who looked very moderate compared to him. Nate Silver posted that Santorum's strong areas correlated strongly with Huck's strong areas back in 2008. No other explanation besides Romney's home state advantage as to why he won. I mean, its no secret he touted that he was born there. "The trees are the right height."
Things have certainly been rough, but he has been incredibly disciplined and showed a unique ability to quickly pivot, adapt new strategies, and execute them effectively. I think it says a lot about that discipline that the only major criticism he gets dinged for is for saying things a millionaire might say. 'Out of touch' often translates into 'we cannot find anything substantively wrong with this guy'.
I am not trying to put down his achievements so far, I am just saying they need to be better if he wants to have a united front when facing obama.
Economic headwinds may make the entire process moot, but if he does secure the nomination, it will be a testament to his administrative and organizational abilities in the face of a populist beast that scared many viable candidates out of the race and skewered many others who got in.
Or it could just mean he is stubborn and knows that he was guaranteed the moderate vote no matter what.
a completely inoffensive name
02-29-2012, 21:09
It seems Nate Silver is think along the same lines I am.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/the-meaning-of-michigan/#more-27179
I’m not sure that there will exist another such opportunity on the Republican calendar (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012). Losing Illinois on Mar. 20, or perhaps Maryland on April 3, could damage Mr. Romney. But there has been little polling in these states, and losses there would probably not have the narrative consequences that a loss in Michigan, Arizona or Florida would have. Then there are states like California and New York, which have a lot of delegates and where losses would be hard to excuse — but they do not vote until late in the process, at which point momentum might be of limited value.
Mr. Romney could still lose the nomination, but his campaign is relatively well-equipped for a war of attrition, and would rather take that route than one where his candidacy seemed to be imploding and there was unambiguous evidence that he had been rejected by the Republican electorate.
His win in Michigan treads water at best; his win in Arizona was impressive. But Mr. Romney is doing just well enough (and not much better) to be on track for the Republican nomination.
His opponents might not have missed their last opportunity to upend him, but they may have missed their best one.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-01-2012, 05:09
So, months ago, most people thought that Romney was probably going to win. Now, most people think that Romney is probably going to win.
It's only the coverage that's silly.
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 16:18
What do ye think on Santorums comments about throwing up listening to the Kennedy speech on separation of Church and State.
Was that speech not crucial in heading off any potential anti-catholic bandwagon??? now we have a catholic who needs to speak about how he would sew it back together as it were.
You guys must really not like Mormons at all at all.
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 16:33
"You guys" as in...? That's like saying Europeans don't like the Church of England. Generalizations are bad Mmkay?.
Not when you talking generically my good man
I think the real reason conservatives are cool on Romney is his religion, it was his stumbling block before and somehow it went away this cycle(or did it)
In steps a catholic who frankly in America should have no chance with those same religious conservatives and suddenly bingo's jingo's he is top dog.
PanzerJaeger
03-01-2012, 16:45
There is certainly some resistance to his religion in evangelical circles, but it is mostly centered around the positions he took in his failed senate race against Ted Kennedy.
Centurion1
03-01-2012, 17:11
Catholics fare quite poorly in US elections despite us making up the largest denomination of religious in the United States.
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 17:26
Catholics fare quite poorly in US elections despite us making up the largest denomination of religious in the United States.
Strange that is it not?? must be centred all in a few places etc etc.
I suppose it means we will see another shift in Southern voting soon into a more latino centred and hence more RC friendly yes/no
Strange that is it not??
Not really. Roman Catholics make up ~24%, while Protestants make up 51%. Baptists might not like Methodists, but they will all gang up on the Papists! ~D
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 17:49
Not really. Roman Catholics make up ~24%, while Protestants make up 51%. Baptists might not like Methodists, but they will all gang up on the Papists! ~D
there is some stuff you can always count on like the yellow peril vid or fear of papist plotting ~D
there is some stuff you can always count on like the yellow peril vid or fear of papist plotting ~D
Indeed. The Vatican already controls the Supreme Court, we can't let them have the White House too!
Strike For The South
03-01-2012, 18:02
Not really. Roman Catholics make up ~24%, while Protestants make up 51%. Baptists might not like Methodists, but they will all gang up on the Papists! ~D
Can we really trust a catholic in the white house?
Edit: I refuse to put a smiley face on the grounds that I hate stupidity
Strike For The South
03-01-2012, 18:06
As per the actuall nomination
The GOP is killing itself. All this dog and pony show is doing is making Canidate Romney spend more money and give more speechs. Both of these things are bad
The more money you spend, the less you have
The more you talk, the more ammo the Obama campagin has
\
Centurion1
03-01-2012, 18:21
Its a deep seated belief held by evangelicals that we are controlled by the Pope. Ask Rhy.
I don't know if people are that stupid anymore but its almost a tradition at this point. Plus of White Americans with religious affiliation protestants still comprise most of the old money.
For the record however I do not even consider Mr. Santorum a catholic anyway. He forgot to update his canon around the 1400's.
Strike For The South
03-01-2012, 18:25
Its a deep seated belief held by evangelicals that we are controlled by the Pope. Ask Rhy.
I don't know if people are that stupid anymore but its almost a tradition at this point. Plus of White Americans with religious affiliation protestants still comprise most of the old money.
For the record however I do not even consider Mr. Santorum a catholic anyway. He forgot to update his canon around the 1400's.
That old money are not the ones with the "catholic" issue
Centurion1
03-01-2012, 18:29
That old money are not the ones with the "catholic" issue
False.
That wasn't my point however. My point is that those individuals often are the ones running for office.
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 18:30
I suppose the fact that historically the catholic vote was urban centered due to immigration meant it counted for less in a presidential nomination/election.
Still Santorum is clearly a looper sure he would hardly be able to even get a nomination if it wasnt for that speech he apparently cannot stand.
As usual what was actually said matters less than what people imagine was.
Strike For The South
03-01-2012, 18:40
False.
That wasn't my point however. My point is that those individuals often are the ones running for office.
I think you are delibratley taking the wrong sides in debates to get my attention.
The old money episcoplains and preysbaterians were the first people to vote for JFK and Obama. Regardless of political affilation the typically old money demonations are more willing to side with the "other"
It's the poor baptists and methodists in the south you have to worry about. Right now Santorum has the slight edge b/c mormonism moves the icky meter on these people more than RC and becuase he is running on a basic family values platform that get these people all hot and bothered
This should be obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills
Centurion1
03-01-2012, 18:49
Old Money stereotypes are alive and well about Roman Catholics especially in the older generations. Obama is not a Catholic so that is absolutely irrelevant by the by. Come to the Northeast. Your looking through rose tinted glasses because you've never really been out of the southern half of the US. One of my friends (polish-catholic) was dating a wealthy girl at our school and her father told him straight up he disapproved of his religious affiliation. And I go to a Catholic University..... Gabelli a billionaire graduate of our school gave a speech and he spoke momentarily of some of the ridiculous stereotypes he had attached to him when he was working in finance in part because he was Roman Catholic.
I'm disagreeing with you because you aren't always right. Obviously bible thumpers down south often dislike Catholics but such dislike is often found within the blue blood echelons of the Northeast.
And finally
That wasn't my point however. My point is that those individuals often are the ones running for office.
Strike For The South
03-01-2012, 18:52
Old Money stereotypes are alive and well about Roman Catholics especially in the older generations. Obama is not a Catholic so that is absolutely irrelevant by the by. Come to the Northeast. Your looking through rose tinted glasses because you've never really been out of the southern half of the US. One of my friends (polish-catholic) was dating a wealthy girl at our school and her father told him straight up he disapproved of his religious affiliation. And I go to a Catholic University..... Gabelli a billionaire graduate of our school gave a speech and he spoke momentarily of some of the ridiculous stereotypes he had attached to him when he was working in finance in part because he was Roman Catholic.
ORLY?
You didn't answer my points but that's ok becuase you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you are to proud to admit it. That's also ok considering my affinity for bad boys.
As a point of technicality, I didn't classify Obama as catholic I classified him as "other"
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2012, 18:59
Gabelli a billionaire graduate of our school gave a speech and he spoke momentarily of some of the ridiculous stereotypes he had attached to him when he was working in finance in part because he was Roman Catholic.
Thats interesting you should mention finance there wonder if it's anything to do with the jewish angle.(prob just tinfoil hattism though)
Centurion1
03-01-2012, 19:01
ORLY?
You didn't answer my points but that's ok becuase you are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you are to proud to admit it. That's also ok considering my affinity for bad boys.
As a point of technicality, I didn't classify Obama as catholic I classified him as "other"
The simple fact of the matter is you think you know everything when you simply don't.
And yes really Strike. You grew up in Texas, you went to school in Texas you live in Texas. What other places have you lived for extended periods of time. If you have lived anywhere else I will obviously retract said statement.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.