Handicapping the 2012 GOP presidential nomination [Archive] - Page 3

Implicit

06-12-2011, 05:45 PM

That's exactly the problem! The establishment republicrats are going to drown us in debt and devalue our dollar which will erode our quality of life. The national debt and the unemployment rate have never at these levels at the same time in any of our lifetimes. That's what makes Paul so different, he isn't like any other politician you've ever heard.

I'm not blaming ALL problems of the USA on the FED, just most of the big economic ones. The 'boom and bust' cycles are created by the FED putting to much money in the hands of to few (the rich guys of course) to quickly, which causes inflation that can't be reigned in. That hurts the people with the least amount of money the most.

Promoting personal liberty, peace, following the rule of law, and an economic system that doesn't favor the wealthy, politically connected elitists. That's 'whatever' reason. I'm assuming the 'lib' in your name is short for liberal. Shouldn't you be standing for candidates that promote personal freedom? Isn't classic liberalism AGAINST "big brother" government intruding in on your lives? Do you think that Obama actually cares about your right to choose what types of medical treatment you get or even what type of milk you drink, or keep your records and your home protected by government intrusion? The patriot act renewal tears up the 4th amendment, just as Bush did before.

He's different, I'll give you that.

Promoting personal liberty except for the choice of doing what we want with our own bodies (rabidly anti-abortion), peace with a well armed populace (no restrictions whatsoever on the right to bear arms), following the rule of law from 200+ years ago (civil rights was a mistake), and an economic system of anarcho-capitalism that favours the wealthy and lets everyone else starve or die.

Eternalone

06-12-2011, 06:53 PM

He's different, I'll give you that.

Promoting personal liberty except for the choice of doing what we want with our own bodies (rabidly anti-abortion), peace with a well armed populace (no restrictions whatsoever on the right to bear arms), following the rule of law from 200+ years ago (civil rights was a mistake), and an economic system of anarcho-capitalism that favours the wealthy and lets everyone else starve or die.

The 2nd amendment has the phrase "well regulated" in it. How you can say that there is not restrictions is beyond me. There should only be restrictions on those who have proven they cannot be trusted with firearms-violent criminals, for example. There should be no restrictions on law abiding citizens. It is well documented that societies that are well armed have lower crime rates. Take a look at Switzerland. Nazi Germany avoided invading there for a reason.

Yes, there are things in the original constitution that are flat out wrong. That is why there is an amendment process that can repeal or change the constitution as society changes. Paul WANTS that process to be followed. No where did he say that he wants the civil rights act to be repealed.
The economic system we have NOW favors the wealthy. Look at the increase in the gap between rich and poor in the last 11 years!!! Paul wants to eliminate all the tax loopholes and subsidies (paid for by us) given to companies that are already hugely profitable. Most of that money goes to the company upper management, not to the non-management employee.
True capitalism has laws/regulations that promote competition and free trade while punishing fraud, breaking up monopolies and collusion (price fixing), and having sound enviornmental regulation. It has nothing in common with anarchy. Anarchy literally means no rules, no law, no authority. No one is advocating that.

BobLibDem

06-12-2011, 07:47 PM

Band name!

Did you make that up? That is the funny thing I've read all week.

Yep, made it up. Kinda proud of it, actually.

Chronos

06-12-2011, 10:34 PM

No where did he say that he wants the civil rights act to be repealed. Well, he sure doesn't seem to like it very much (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html). Frankly, if he thinks that a piece of legislation didn't accomplish its goals and reduced liberty, but he doesn't want to repeal it, then that makes him a piss-poor legislator, especially if he's going to claim to be for "small government".

GIGObuster

06-13-2011, 12:01 AM

Add in the normal loony-toon libertarian nonsense and fold in an extensive history of racist statements and you have a candidate with no chance whatsoever. But like Harold Stassen and Pat Paulson, he'll run again...and again... as long as he has a pulse.

Dick Cheney has demonstrated that one does not need a pulse to continue. So you all are warned... ;)

Merijeek

06-13-2011, 12:22 PM

dailypaul.com

ronpaulflix.com

...and a join date of June 2011. Shocking.

-Joe

Chronos

06-13-2011, 12:43 PM

[trivia mode]Dick Cheney has demonstrated that one does not need a pulse to continue.Most Dopers probably already know this, but this is literally true, not just a joke. Cheney has a new style of artificial heart which pumps blood continuously, not in discrete beats like a natural one.

Captain Lance Murdoch

06-13-2011, 04:09 PM

Ron Paul is 200 years old, and he's a perennial candidate. He got crushed last time around. Unless you can present a compelling reason to believe that Republicans are going to move to his side like they never have before your posts are nothing more than cheerleading for him.

Simplicio

06-13-2011, 08:30 PM

Watching the GOP debate. Its basically Romney and some schmucks. Actually seeing them all on stage, its pretty hard to picture anyone else being the nominee. Indeed, the lack of 'real' candidates is really weird, even Pawlenty seems kinda out-there.

Also went to Youtube and flipped through some of the earlier Dem debates. The contrast is pretty stark. In the GOP, almost every answer is a direct attack on Obama, in the 2007 Dem debates, there's lot of discussion of "change" and such that are obviously meant to contrast the candidate favorably with Bush, but almost no one actually attacks Bush, or even refers to him (except when Iraq comes up). This despite the fact that Bush was a lot more unpopular in 2007 then Obama is now.

Diogenes the Cynic

06-13-2011, 08:35 PM

Simplicio

06-13-2011, 08:47 PM

There seems to have also been some agreement that they won't be asked questions about each other. It's not really a debate at all, in that they're not being asked to argue about anything, but just take turns bashing Obama. Their answers on DADT were ridiculous as well. When are these assholes going to learn that the fag bashing is a losing issue for them now?

Pawlenty got asked a question about Romney-care (which he totally failed to capitalize on) so if there's an agreement, the host isn't taking it too seriously. But the candidates do seem to be going out of their way not to attack , or even acknowledge each other.

Simplicio

06-14-2011, 12:04 AM

Also regarding the debate, where was John Huntsman and Gary Johnson? If your already having trouble with name-recognition, seems kinda silly to skip out on the first debate (well, I guess its the second debate, but the first one with all the major candidates)

ETA: According to wikipedia, Huntsman declined the invitation to appear, and Johnson wasn't invited. Seems kinda silly, Johnson's a longshot, but not anymore so then Santorum, and probably less so then Cain.

And really weird for Huntsman to decline, as I said, its not like he can afford to pass up opportuniites to get his face infront of primary voters. I wonder if he's already throwing in the towel?

BrainGlutton

06-14-2011, 09:40 AM

True capitalism has laws/regulations that promote competition and free trade while punishing fraud, breaking up monopolies and collusion (price fixing), and having sound enviornmental regulation.

Actually, True Capitalism existed before any of those things were invented or conceived.

But not long before.

Crane

06-14-2011, 03:06 PM

Bachmann's the obvious debate winner. She looked good, conducted herself well and trumped the field with her announcement - great theater!

The rest of the pack is overexposed and redundant. They all repeat the same, tired whine - "Good or bad we have to replace Obama".

When they have beat that message to a pulp, Palin will enter the fray and, by then, even Palin will sound good.

Crane

Chronos

06-14-2011, 03:16 PM

So how do folks end up in debates before they officially announce they're running?

Crane

06-14-2011, 03:17 PM

They get invited.

Crane

Merijeek

06-14-2011, 03:33 PM

So how do folks end up in debates before they officially announce they're running?

Same way Bachmann did? Hell, did Ron Paul ever actually announce he was running, or did everyone just assume out of habit?

-Joe

Simplicio

06-14-2011, 04:43 PM

Same way Bachmann did? Hell, did Ron Paul ever actually announce he was running, or did everyone just assume out of habit?

He announced. I think everyone except Huntsman has announced now.

Chronos

06-14-2011, 05:27 PM

Did Romney announce? I missed that.

And debates are usually presented as "A debate between the Republican candidates for President", not "A debate between a bunch of folks who we think might eventually get around to running for President". It seems odd, to me, to invite folks who aren't officially running, or for someone to accept without first officially announcing they're running.

Crane

06-14-2011, 05:50 PM

Since they had to cancel the first one due to lack of interest, it may be a debate among those willing to show up.

Crane

Simplicio

06-14-2011, 09:26 PM

Did Romney announce? I missed that.

Yea, a week or two ago in NH (the news got kind of stomped on by Palin showing up in the same state to do whatever it is that Palin is rolling around the country doing).

And debates are usually presented as "A debate between the Republican candidates for President", not "A debate between a bunch of folks who we think might eventually get around to running for President". It seems odd, to me, to invite folks who aren't officially running, or for someone to accept without first officially announcing they're running.

The weird pussyfooting around announcing has been really weird. I don't recall anything similar from past primaries. Especaially Bachmann announcing she's running at a Presidential Primary debate.

Implicit

06-14-2011, 09:39 PM

He announced. I think everyone except Huntsman has announced now.
He's announced (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/14/985105/-Huntsman-announces-hes-running-for-president) that he's announcing. Or something.

Marley23

06-14-2011, 09:42 PM

The weird pussyfooting around announcing has been really weird. I don't recall anything similar from past primaries. Especaially Bachmann announcing she's running at a Presidential Primary debate.
The candidates usually delay announcing as long as they can. I don't know if it's because they want to practice and get everything up and running first or because they want to campaign and raise money for as long as they can without the scrutiny that comes with being a declared candidate. In the last few cycles, the announcements had moved earlier and earlier. I think Clinton declared in January 2007, and by then there had been pressure on her to declare for some time because everyone knew she was going to be a candidate. I remember her complaining about that a little bit. Anyway that trend has been reversed this year. Some of the Republicans still haven't declared, and some of the official declarations are pretty recent. But there's an incumbent this year and they're being more cautious.

Chronos

06-15-2011, 03:53 PM

There is some sense in delaying an announcement. When a candidate announces, that's one headline, and it's settled. When a candidate hasn't, though, they can stake claim to column-inches speculating about when and whether they'll announce. Though obviously you can only delay so long, before the answer to that speculation becomes "no".

Cyberhwk

06-16-2011, 01:30 AM

No cite and someone can correct me, but I think there's also significant changes on what you can and can't spend your PAC money on depending on if you're a declared candidate or not.

BobLibDem

06-16-2011, 05:18 AM

Same way Bachmann did? Hell, did Ron Paul ever actually announce he was running, or did everyone just assume out of habit?

-Joe

You can file your papers online and he checked the box marked "In Perpetuity".

Crane

06-19-2011, 05:51 AM

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 11:21 AM

Well, he sure doesn't seem to like it very much (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html). Frankly, if he thinks that a piece of legislation didn't accomplish its goals and reduced liberty, but he doesn't want to repeal it, then that makes him a piss-poor legislator, especially if he's going to claim to be for "small government".

I think what Ron Paul is trying to say is enough of government meddling in our lives. It is not fair for the government to give one group a helping hand & not another.

Really Not All That Bright

06-19-2011, 12:45 PM

How, exactly, does guaranteeing certain rights to everyone constitute "a helping hand" to one group?

JimH52

06-19-2011, 01:03 PM

Looks like Huntsman is in and possibly Perry.

Huntsman is the most qualified candidate for the Republican nomination. It will be interesting to see how well he fares in a field of clowns. This may be more a test of the electorate than of the candidates.

Crane

Huntsman is being dismayed by many repubs because he was Obama's ambassador. But I agree that Huntsman is the most qualified out there. As for Perry? I am not sure we are ready for another Governor from Texas.

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 04:13 PM

How, exactly, does guaranteeing certain rights to everyone constitute "a helping hand" to one group?

By everyone being on the same level playing field. You are given one group precedent over another...how is that fair?
I probably be labeled a racist for this but...Affirmative action quite honestly is for all intensive purposes wrong, you are giving priority to another group of people over another. How is that fair?
My point is this we are all Americans treat us like such, instead of putting us into classes to fight each other. Break the class warfare. JMO

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 04:18 PM

Huntsman is being dismayed by many repubs because he was Obama's ambassador. But I agree that Huntsman is the most qualified out there. As for Perry? I am not sure we are ready for another Governor from Texas.

I agree with first half of that statement. Unfortunately there are too many partisans in the Republican Party for him to actually think he could get the nomination. I do not know of his qualifications, will have to do my homework.

As far as Perry, well I believe you are partly right on that one. Yes, some are weary of another Texan. But on the plus side Texas is doing better than most of the United States. Only time will tell.

Gyrate

06-19-2011, 04:23 PM

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 04:36 PM

Firstly, you earn a place in Grammar Hell for saying "for all intensive purposes". The phrase is "for all intents and purposes". Repent!

Secondly, and more seriously, the point of AA is that the playing field isn't level - or rather, the playing field may well now be level but one team has had its legs broken repeatedly in the past and needs a little help until it gets back to full health. I'm not a particular fan of the policy but I understand why it exists.
Hey, the rich white guys started it.

:smack: I beg your forgiveness!

I stand by my statement, I think to move on we have to (re) level the playing field. Yes, I understand what took place in the past but, I think it is time to reverse Affirmative action. I think all it is doing is causing more racial tensions than helping.

In relation to the rich white guys started it...Two wrongs don't make a right ;)

Really Not All That Bright

06-19-2011, 08:33 PM

By everyone being on the same level playing field. You are given one group precedent over another...how is that fair?
I probably be labeled a racist for this but...Affirmative action quite honestly is for all intensive purposes wrong, you are giving priority to another group of people over another. How is that fair?
My point is this we are all Americans treat us like such, instead of putting us into classes to fight each other. Break the class warfare. JMO
Paul was talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not affirmative action. While affirmative action based programs have occasionally been used by states and federal agencies to comply with CRA mandates, the two are not otherwise related.

Having a problem with affirmative action doesn't mean you have a problem with the Civil Rights Act.

In any case, you're not giving one group "precedent" over another. You're giving several groups favorable treatment over one which has continued to receive favorable treatment otherwise right up to the present.

For example, the American Bar Association didn't admit its first black member* until 1948, and didn't admit its tenth black member until 1966. Partly that was because the ABA didn't want negroes joining, and partly it was because blacks weren't admitted to law schools in many states. Arizona had five black licensed attorneys in 1977.

I assume I don't need to explain what was going on in 1964. Bear in mind that most people who were alive then are still alive now.

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 08:41 PM

I understand where we came from. I also know the forward strides we have made as a country. I still think we need to re-access the need for the (Affirmative Action) law. I personally think any preferential treatment over another group is wrong. JMHO

Really Not All That Bright

06-19-2011, 09:03 PM

That's nice. It still has very little to do with the Civil Rights Act.

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 09:36 PM

That's nice. It still has very little to do with the Civil Rights Act.
What part of I was talking about Affirmative action & not the Civil Rights Act don't you understand?

Simplicio

06-19-2011, 09:41 PM

What part of I was talking about Affirmative action & not the Civil Rights Act don't you understand?

The part where you were responding to posts regarding Paul's view of the Civil Rights Act. If you want to just riff on unrelated laws you don't like, you should probably get a blog instead of pretending to be conversing with other people.

Really Not All That Bright

06-19-2011, 09:46 PM

What part of I was talking about Affirmative action & not the Civil Rights Act don't you understand?
The part where you weren't:
Well, he sure doesn't seem to like it very much (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html). Frankly, if he thinks that a piece of legislation didn't accomplish its goals and reduced liberty, but he doesn't want to repeal it, then that makes him a piss-poor legislator, especially if he's going to claim to be for "small government".I think what Ron Paul is trying to say is enough of government meddling in our lives. It is not fair for the government to give one group a helping hand & not another.

Tugboater1970

06-19-2011, 10:02 PM

Alright, let's see then we must stay on topic exactly & not give an opinion on a related matter to the discussion. I apologize for that hopefully one day I could become a sexual intellectual such as yourself. Y'all have a good evening.

Really Not All That Bright

06-19-2011, 11:08 PM

The Civil Rights Act is a related matter. Affirmative action isn't.

Sexual intellectual?

Least Original User Name Ever

06-19-2011, 11:15 PM

The Civil Rights Act is a related matter. Affirmative action isn't.

Sexual intellectual?

A sexual tyrannosaurus. Just like me.

waterj2

06-19-2011, 11:36 PM

The Civil Rights Act is a related matter. Affirmative action isn't.

Sexual intellectual?AKA a fucking know-it-all (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexual%20intellectual).

Merijeek

06-20-2011, 08:53 AM

AKA a fucking know-it-all (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexual%20intellectual).

But his rhymed! And we all know advice that rhymes is the best advice!

PAUL 2012! Fuck you, I got mine!

-Joe

Really Not All That Bright

06-20-2011, 09:05 AM

That doesn't rhyme.

Thanks, wj.

Merijeek

06-20-2011, 01:06 PM

That doesn't rhyme.

Thanks, wj.

Sorry, that was meant to be a bumper sticker. Not a clever rhyme.

-Joe

42fish

06-21-2011, 08:33 AM

That doesn't rhyme.

Howzabout

"Vote for Paul
I got mine, fuck you all"

RTFirefly

06-23-2011, 12:31 PM

Looks like Pawlenty's campaign isn't going well (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-of-tim-pawlentys-top-aides-working-for-little-or-no-pay-source-says/2011/06/22/AG9ltVgH_story.html):
At least five top advisers to former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty have been working for little or no pay for several months, a campaign source said Wednesday.

The news establishes with more certainty the emerging portrait of Pawlenty as struggling to keep up with the larger and better-funded operation of his main rival for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

DoctorJ

06-23-2011, 02:43 PM

Nate Silver (of 538) tweeted his odds a few days ago:
If I were setting odds on GOP, would be about: Romney 7-4, T-Paw 4-1, Perry 6-1, Bachmann 9-1, Huntsman 25-1, Palin 25-1, field 9-1.
I think he's being a little too generous to Pawlenty, who seems incapable of generating excitement and only looks sillier as he tries. But otherwise it isn't bad.

Chronos

06-23-2011, 02:59 PM

Odds translate into probabilities as (second number) / (sum of two numbers), right? Because it doesn't look like those come close to adding up.

RTFirefly

06-23-2011, 03:13 PM

Odds translate into probabilities as (second number) / (sum of two numbers), right? Because it doesn't look like those come close to adding up.They don't add to exactly 1, but pretty close:

Romney 4/11 = .3636
T-Paw 1/5 = .2
Perry 1/7 = .1429
Bachmann 1/10 = .1
Field 1/10 = .1
Huntsman 1/26 = .0385
Palin 1/26 = .0385

Sum: 4922/5005 = .9834

Tom Scud

06-23-2011, 03:16 PM

Nate Silver (of 538) tweeted his odds a few days ago:

I think he's being a little too generous to Pawlenty, who seems incapable of generating excitement and only looks sillier as he tries. But otherwise it isn't bad.

Also way too generous to Huntsman, who doesn't really deserve to be broken out of "field".

Cyberhwk

06-23-2011, 08:50 PM

foolsguinea

06-24-2011, 10:10 PM

With his more moderate views on Gay Marriage, Iraq and having served in Obama's administration, Nate Silver also dropped the I-word (http://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight/status/83725275451490304) with regards to Huntsman.The l-word (L-word)? Oh, the I-word (i-word)!

Well, making Huntsman look independent is a good way to get Huntsman elected.

Recovering Republican

06-27-2011, 06:51 AM

Here's my breakdown-

Romney- The establishment's boy, he was an awful candidate in 2008, he's an awful candidate now. his strategy is to bypass Iowa and play for the moderate side of the street.

Palin- Probably not running. I think she's waiting to see if this new propaganda film will enhance her image. Then most of her followers will go to Bachmann. She might sell out and endorse Romney later in the proces.

Gingrich- Dead and buried. Might stick around to Iowa so he can say he was a contender, but he's done.

Perry- Might be a comprimise candidate between the Tea Party and Establishment.

Bachmann- The Tea Party's girl. Besides Palin, she's the only one they seem enthusiastic about.

Guiliani- Stay down, Rudy.

Pawlenty- Doesn't seem to be catching fire.

Huntsman- Are you sure you're in the right party, Guy?

RTFirefly

06-27-2011, 11:49 AM

My quick takes:

1) Romney is gradually strengthening his hold on the 'default candidate' position. He can certainly still be brought down, but the longer it keeps on not happening, the more he deprives oxygen (and money) from the other only moderately crazy GOP candidates, which really just means Pawlenty, since Huntsman's campaign isn't going anywhere anyway.

2) If Rick Perry runs, Pawlenty's candidacy is toast. T-Paw's only shot is to be the guy who's acceptable to both wings of the GOP and has some sort of record to run on. Perry's got all that, and already there's more enthusiasm for Perry in the GOP than there ever was for Pawlenty. Given that T-Paw's campaign's already apparently having serious money problems, it's hard to see why anyone votes for Pawlenty if Perry jumps in.

3) It's time to start taking Michele Bachmann's chances seriously: she pulled 22% in the first Des Moines Register Iowa Poll (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/27/iowa-poll-on-gop-field-detailed-questions-results/) of this cycle, essentially tied with Romney who had 23%. And another 18% listed her as their second choice, well ahead of anyone else in the field. She also had easily the best Favorable/Unfav. rating at 65-12, with 31% having a 'very favorable' view of her (no one else had over 19% 'very favorable').

4) I think the chances that Sarah Palin can pull together a coherent campaign are rapidly converging on zero. There's really no reason to break her out from 'field' anymore in the odds. She still is polling second to Romney in national polls, but I don't think that'll be true in three months.

5) Huntsman might as well give up and go home. There just aren't enough only-moderately-crazy GOP voters for Romney, Rick Perry, and Pawlenty to leave him many voters. Dump him back in 'field' as well.

6) Don't know what to make of Herman Cain's chances, but he's totally batshit crazy, with a big side helping of ignorant.

7) Don't know what to make, really, of Perry's chances either until he actually starts running*. But if he's gonna run, he needs to get a move on, before Teabaggers get too comfortable with Bachmann as a candidate.

*That doesn't mean 'until he declares his candidacy.' That means 'until he starts doing the things that candidates do' - i.e. spending significant time in early primary states, participating in debates, and so forth.

Quartz

06-27-2011, 11:53 AM

And from over the Atlantic:

Romney: Mr Bland. Not a Leader.
Palin: wants the VP slot.
Gingrich: passed it.
Guiliani: burned out.
Karger: start channelling Reagan more and stop campaigning on the gay issue! (And I only know of him because of his mention here).
Others: who? Are they really campaigning or laying down markers for 2016?

Chronos

06-27-2011, 12:41 PM

5) Huntsman might as well give up and go home. There just aren't enough only-moderately-crazy GOP voters for Romney, Rick Perry, and Pawlenty to leave him many voters. Dump him back in 'field' as well.His goals are still attainable, and he'd be a fool to give up now. He doesn't have a chance of actually winning any of the early primary states, but if he can put in a respectable showing while the clear candidate (probably Romney, or maybe Perry) emerges, and if Obama goes on to win, then he's set for 2016. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that what he needs is to get a larger share of the vote than the difference between the top two candidates: That would be enough to make his post-withdrawal endorsement meaningful.

BobLibDem

06-27-2011, 01:58 PM

At the moment:

Romney: Would be the prohibitive favorite if enough people could stand him. He might as well tack to the center now because the right wing hates his guts and always will. His best hope is that enough challengers divide up the anti-Romney vote until his nomination is inevitable.

Bachmann: If the right wing settles on her, she's in. Her trouble now is splitting the anti-Romney votes with others. As long as Sarah Palin doesn't split the MILF vote with her, she could definitely be the last one standing other than Mitt.

Huntsman: He's suffering from lack of oxygen and attention. Every Palin tweet from her bunker generates 10 times the buzz of any of his speeches. Will never shake the stigma of having been in the Obama administration.

Pawlenty: Like the guy in Sixth Sense, everyone knows he's dead but him.

Gingrich: Even he knows he's dead. Time to start the search for wife #4.

Paul: His cult will be back in 2016, just like him. If the voters want batshit crazy, they'll take it in a prettier package.

Perry: Too late. The whackosphere is coalescing around Bachmann.

Cain: Are you serious? With the Teahadists having a four year panic attack over a black guy in the White House, the Republicans would ever nominate a black guy. Not to mention he's batshit crazy and a flaming bigot, to boot.

Palin: Running for billionaire, not president.

G911iani: Makes the Cain campaign look plausible.

It's Romney or Bachmann.

Onomatopoeia

06-27-2011, 02:03 PM

BobLibDem

06-27-2011, 02:11 PM

It's (still) Romney's nomination to lose as far as I'm concerned. There is simply no way the GOP establishment will stand by and let Bachmann take it. They're not stupid. A Bachmann nomination will pretty much guarantee a 10% margin of victory for Obama.

I would agree with you, except that we really don't know to what extent the crazies have taken over the Republican Party. I think Romney is the Hillary of '12, once his inevitability is shattered, he goes down in flames. If I had to put money on one or the other, I'd put it on Michelle.

RTFirefly

06-27-2011, 02:40 PM

His goals are still attainable, and he'd be a fool to give up now. He doesn't have a chance of actually winning any of the early primary states, but if he can put in a respectable showing while the clear candidate (probably Romney, or maybe Perry) emerges, and if Obama goes on to win, then he's set for 2016.I disagree - I think he's being squeezed out almost altogether. A guy who can't get into double digits outside of Mormon country isn't going to set himself up for much of anything.

And a prediction: the GOP won't be noticeably saner in 2016 than it is now. Huntsman won't be a better fit for the party anytime in the future than he is today. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that what he needs is to get a larger share of the vote than the difference between the top two candidates: That would be enough to make his post-withdrawal endorsement meaningful.He'll endorse Romney, unless Romney crashes and burns before he drops out.

Chronos

06-27-2011, 02:44 PM

I disagree - I think he's being squeezed out almost altogether.He certainly might be, and I might go so far as to say that he probably will be squeezed out. I just wouldn't say yet that he has no chance of doing well enough for his goals.

He'll endorse Romney, unless Romney crashes and burns before he drops out. Oh, probably, but here you're actually reinforcing what I was saying: If he manages to last longer than Romney, that's a very good performance indeed for him.

foolsguinea

06-27-2011, 04:10 PM

The GOP has tended to nominate the candidate "next in line" whatever that means. 2000 was a mild aberration, in that the process turned into picking one of GHW Bush's sons as a sort of crown prince.

But right now, the one who can claim it's his turn is Romney. And he probably still can raise the money to buy endorsements (as he did in 2008). It doesn't matter how many people are mildly displeased with him when the endorsements come out & the money is on his side.

So what would have to happen for the GOP to turn away the guy that's been favored for all this time, that a lot wanted to be the candidate in '08, that can win the center?

Some desire to maintain the present status quo? Doubtful. Still a lot of patronage in the federal executive, and more importantly prestige.

A belief that Obama is too unbeatable, so they should put up a loony to make it look like they threw it? Too half-subtle, and would require a lack of self-belief I don't expect in the party's decision making.

A whole lot of anti-Mormon feeling? I doubt it, evangelicals seem OK with Orrin Hatch.

Hatred of "Romneycare"? Nah, It's OK If A Republican Does It.

I expect Romney will take the nom, possibly very quickly, and give Obama a real race next year.

ladylinda

06-27-2011, 04:20 PM

I'm not so sure.

Romney's flip-flopped on abortion several times and he's a bit iffy on some other issue too.

To be honest, Bachmann's been mildly surprising.

And, of course, there's the joker in the pack.

If I was a Republican party organiser I would be begging Condi Rice to run for the nomination.

IMO she'd stand a real chance.

Really Not All That Bright

06-27-2011, 08:40 PM

And, of course, there's the joker in the pack.
Could you be more specific? :D

42fish

06-27-2011, 09:29 PM

And, of course, there's the joker in the pack.

Could you be more specific? :D

I think it's a trial balloon for a Steve Miller candidacy. I'll vote for him if he agrees to tell us what the fuck a pompatus is.

Kolak of Twilo

06-28-2011, 03:06 AM

The GOP has tended to nominate the candidate "next in line" whatever that means. 2000 was a mild aberration, in that the process turned into picking one of GHW Bush's sons as a sort of crown prince.

But right now, the one who can claim it's his turn is Romney.
If this were a typical election cycle, with a typical candidate who could claim the mantle of being "next in line' I would probably agree, but it isn't. First, the Republican base has turned into Tea Partiers. These folks hate, Hate, HATE the establishment more than anything right now and Romney reeks of establisment to them.

Second, Romney can claim the mantle of next in line only because he basically came in second to McCain in '08 (and Palin isn't running). Of those (trying) to run, Gingrich and Giuliani could make a better or at least equal claim to be the one who is next in line based on their party service. Add to that the only position of prominence in the party Romney can claim is being a one term governor of the evil liberal state of Taxachusetts and well...it kinda falls apart.

And he probably still can raise the money to buy endorsements (as he did in 2008). It doesn't matter how many people are mildly displeased with him when the endorsements come out & the money is on his side.

I think internet fundraising by politicians has seriously changed how money is being raised and will be raised in the future. The big money people want to back the winner more than anything else. If the tide starts to shift in one person's direction, the donations probably will follow. Remember how the money shifted from Clinton to Obama in '08? Same idea.

A whole lot of anti-Mormon feeling? I doubt it, evangelicals seem OK with Orrin Hatch.
Hatch has never run for any office where the evangelical vote mattered, so this is largely irrelavant.

That most evangelicals will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, I do not doubt. But, I suspect 10-15% of evangelicals are more likely to sit out the election than vote for someone they believe is a member of a cult and not a Christian.

I expect Romney will take the nom, possibly very quickly, and give Obama a real race next year.
I would acknowledge Romeny may yet take the nom. I don't think it will be quick. I think Bachman may suprise everyone with how well she does. And I suspect if Perry gets in the race he could take the nomination handily.

Recovering Republican

06-28-2011, 05:21 AM

Wow, Bob, so much anger.

I think you make the mistake of characterizing the Tea Partiers as racist and stupid, which they are not.

I think they are angry, but their anger is misdirected.

Perry could be the comprimise candidate, if he gets in, but the clock is ticking on him. Remember, Fred Thompson showed that you can't start late and be serious, and Thompson was in by now in 2007. (He delayed until the last minute so he could keep getting royalties from Law and Order.)

Bachmann has said some whacky things, but don't think that she couldn't attract a lot of moderate support.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Americans usually end up voting in the guy they'd rather have a beer with.

I'd rather have a beer with Bachmann than Obama.

CaptMurdock

06-28-2011, 09:12 AM

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Americans usually end up voting in the guy they'd rather have a beer with.

And if this is not the saddest commentary on how far this country has Jumped the Shark, I don't know what is. Screw having the Best and the Brightest, I want to elect a guy who drinks beer. Dear God, we are lost.

RTFirefly

06-28-2011, 09:51 AM

I think you make the mistake of characterizing the Tea Partiers as racist and stupid, which they are not. I think you're the one making the mistake there. But be that as it may.
Americans usually end up voting in the guy they'd rather have a beer with. No one in their right mind would have rather had a beer with Carter than with Ford. And we elected Nixon twice, and nobody in their right mind would have wanted to have a beer with Nixon, period.

I'd rather have a beer with Bachmann than Obama.I'd much rather have a beer with Obama, because he's smart and knows a lot about a wide variety of different things; I'm sure he'd be fun to talk to. The things Bachmann knows that just ain't so, along with her general illogic, would start driving me up the wall about five minutes into our conversation.

If I were single, I wouldn't mind having sex with Bachmann, because IME crazy women can be awfully good in the sack.

Really Not All That Bright

06-28-2011, 11:48 AM

I'd rather have a beer with Bachmann than Obama.
I'd rather have a beer with Dan Marino, but that doesn't make him a plausible candidate.

Chronos

06-28-2011, 12:48 PM

Quoth Kolak of Twilo:I think Bachman may suprise everyone with how well she does.She's already surprising everyone with how well she's doing.

Captain Lance Murdoch

06-28-2011, 10:54 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

06-28-2011, 11:17 PM

Really Not All That Bright

06-28-2011, 11:29 PM

Not sure what the lyrics...
And for one desperate moment
There he crept back in her memory
God it's so painful when something that's so close
Is still so far out of reach
and...
Take it easy baby
Make it last all night
are supposed to signal about her campaign.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 06:26 AM

And if this is not the saddest commentary on how far this country has Jumped the Shark, I don't know what is. Screw having the Best and the Brightest, I want to elect a guy who drinks beer. Dear God, we are lost.

Gee, Obama is supposed to an flippin' genius, and ummm, how's that working out for you?

I making $5,000 a year less than I did in 2008. And I guess I should be happy, I have a job.

Fact is, Obama comes off as elitist and kind of out of touch, really. I think a few people think that "yeah, I hope the GOP nominates Bachmann because she's gonna be really easy to beat!"

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 06:29 AM

Another little item - it looks like Tom Petty is not happy at all (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-tompetty-idUSTRE75S00F20110629) that Michele Bachmann is using his song, "American Girl" at her events.

It seems like Republicans always have this problem. They can't use rock songs without pissing off the artists. They can only use shit kicker country artists and Ted Nugent.

Well, yeah, I guess that's the problem when you fly around on a private jet and think you should tell me what kind of car I should drive, you get that kind of arrogance.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 06:32 AM

Bachmann has had quite the eventful couple of days. She said John Quincy Adams was a founding father, she proposed abolishing the minimum wage, she got John Wayne and John Wayne Gacey mixed up, and she came under scrutiny for receiving lots of government money from her farm and her hubby's pray away the gay counseling center.

But take it from a Minnesotan, this is just a normal run of days in the life of Guano-Crazy Bachmann.

I think you are mischaracterizing both the Adams and Wayne statements, neither of which are a big deal.

But please, please keep trying to attack the family farm and the Christian counsolling center, because that'll go over really well with middle America.

What is it in Minnesota where you guys elect nutbags like Bachmann, Al Franken and Jesse Ventura? Is it something in the water?

End of the day, 2012 will be a referndum on Obama, not Bachmann.

Gyrate

06-29-2011, 06:42 AM

Gee, Obama is supposed to an flippin' genius, and ummm, how's that working out for you? Pretty good, actually. His long-overdue reform of the student loan system has made a huge difference in my ability to manage my loan payments during this rather tough period.I making $5,000 a year less than I did in 2008. And I guess I should be happy, I have a job. And I'm sure you can show a direct link to something Obama did to cause this.Fact is, Obama comes off as elitist and kind of out of touch, really. By "elitist" do you mean "talks smarter than me"? Are GOP tax cuts for the rich a better sign of solidarity with the common man?

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 06:45 AM

I think you're the one making the mistake there. But be that as it may.
No one in their right mind would have rather had a beer with Carter than with Ford. And we elected Nixon twice, and nobody in their right mind would have wanted to have a beer with Nixon, period..

Again, I think this was a different time... But really, Nixon was better than Humphrey, who couldn't decide if he was against or for a war his president started, or McGovern, who ran on the "craven surrender" platform.

I'd much rather have a beer with Obama, because he's smart and knows a lot about a wide variety of different things; I'm sure he'd be fun to talk to. .

Or he'd come off as a snooty college professor who never held a real job.

Too bad one of those things he doesn't know is "how to fix the economy".

The things Bachmann knows that just ain't so, along with her general illogic, would start driving me up the wall about five minutes into our conversation.

Every politician- including Obama, says things that aren't true because they fit into their idealogical framework.

I'm still waiting to hear about those other 7 states that got added to the union that he visted. I suspect two of them are "confusion" and "denial".

If I were single, I wouldn't mind having sex with Bachmann, because IME crazy women can be awfully good in the sack.

You know, I'm going to call shennanigans here. Whether it be Hillary, Palin or Bachmann, what is it about female candidates where they are subjected immediately to sexist comments like this.

This is the kind of thing that could really backfire on you guys. A lot of women aren't going to like seeing one of their own mistreated.

Gyrate

06-29-2011, 06:50 AM

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 06:54 AM

Pretty good, actually. His long-overdue reform of the student loan system has made a huge difference in my ability to manage my loan payments during this rather tough period.?

Ah, silly me, I joined the MILITARY to pay for my college. I should have just sucked away at the welfare teet....

And I'm sure you can show a direct link to something Obama did to cause this.

He's supposed to be the guy who was gonna fix this, remember? Ain't seein' a whole lot of fix at this point. "Recovery Summer II" is really the most disappointing sequel of the year.

By "elitist" do you mean "talks smarter than me"?

No, I mean talking down to people like his "bitter Clinger" comments. There's a valid argument to be made that the GOP uses social issues to get working people to vote against their economic interests, but he put it in a way that sounded snooty.

My own opinion is that the social issues are a waste, because you can't legislate morality. But to dismiss people's concerns like that is elitist and arrogant.

Are GOP tax cuts for the rich a better sign of solidarity with the common man?

NO, they aren't. In fact, they are bad policy. The GOP has gotten it all backwards, really, because tax cuts make government more attractive, not less. (You get all these goodies, and you don't have to pay for it.)

I suspect, though, the reason why they don't resonate is because most people hope to be rich some day, and shudder at the thought that when they finally climb their way to the top, someone in the government is just going to take it and give it to someone else.

Zakalwe

06-29-2011, 07:10 AM

Ah, silly me, I joined the MILITARY to pay for my college. I should have just sucked away at the welfare teet....No, you joined the military so that the government would pay for your college. You do understand that student loans have to be paid back right? If that's welfare then everyone who ever bought a house or car on a loan got welfare.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 07:18 AM

No, you joined the military so that the government would pay for your college. You do understand that student loans have to be paid back right? If that's welfare then everyone who ever bought a house or car on a loan got welfare.

No, I joined the military because I love my country.

And frankly, given how many people default on their student loans, or never pay them back...it's welfare, really.

If the government has to back your loan, it's because a real institution wouldn't bet on your normal ability to pay it back.

Which in turn drives up the cost of college, because they can charge ridiculous amounts for it.

When I went to UIC back in the 80's, tuition was only about $1200 a year. Today it's about $9000 a year.

RTFirefly

06-29-2011, 09:51 AM

Again, I think this was a different time... But really, Nixon was better than Humphrey, who couldn't decide if he was against or for a war his president started, or McGovern, who ran on the "craven surrender" platform. I'm not gonna argue who was better by whatever yardstick. The fact is that nobody with a pulse would have wanted to have a beer with Nixon.

Too bad one of those things he doesn't know is "how to fix the economy". Maybe you're unfamiliar with our system of government, and the limits to what a President can do without the concurrence of Congress.

I recommend the Constitution, Articles I and II.

Every politician- including Obama, says things that aren't true because they fit into their idealogical framework. Oh, good: so there's no difference IYHO from someone who tells the truth 99% of the time, and gets it wrong 1% of the time, from someone who does the reverse. If Obama ever has said something that was incorrect, it's 'both sides do it.'

I think the discussion here has moved past that sorta crap.

I'm still waiting to hear about those other 7 states that got added to the union that he visted. I suspect two of them are "confusion" and "denial". I've got no idea what you're talking about, but whatever, dude. If you're gonna nail Obama for tailoring the truth to his preferences, you gotta come up with something better than garbage like this.

This is the kind of thing that could really backfire on you guys. Because what's said on the SDMB is SO influential in the wider world.

CaptMurdock

06-29-2011, 10:35 AM

Gee, Obama is supposed to an flippin' genius, and ummm, how's that working out for you?
Better than if Hanoi John and Caribou Barbie has gotten into the White House, thanks for asking.

I making $5,000 a year less than I did in 2008. And I guess I should be happy, I have a job. Really?? I'm making more than I did in 2008. Maybe the problem here is you.

Fact is, Obama comes off as elitist and kind of out of touch, really.
Elitist: Code word for "He's smarter than I am, more successful, and I blame him for my perceived inadequacies."

He's supposed to be the guy who was gonna fix this, remember? Ain't seein' a whole lot of fix at this point.
Ain't seein' a whole of ideas about how the President, all by himself, would "fix this." I don't really see a whole lot of ideas coming from the GOP and the rabid right-wing blogosphere. Just a lot of Tourette-Syndrome-like spoutings of "Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!" Never mind the fact that the large corporations, posting record profits and paying their CEOs at higher rates than ever before, are nevertheless sitting on their piles of cash and not hiring more workers, forcing their current workforce slave away at 175% of their capability under the threat of No Longer Being Lucky To Have A Job. Never mind that, it's all Obama's fault. Go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

No, I mean talking down to people like his "bitter Clinger" comments. There's a valid argument to be made that the GOP uses social issues to get working people to vote against their economic interests, but he put it in a way that sounded snooty.

My own opinion is that the social issues are a waste, because you can't legislate morality. But to dismiss people's concerns like that is elitist and arrogant. Yes, because telling anybody that they are being immature and just pain stupid is wrong. Why wear seatbelts? You're just going to make people feel they're bad drivers, and they'll think you are "snooty." :rolleyes: God forbid anybody tells the truth in this country...

Really Not All That Bright

06-29-2011, 11:28 AM

End of the day, 2012 will be a referndum on Obama, not Bachmann.
Absolutely. But if Bachmann is the Republican nominee, voters will hold their noses and vote for the no-longer-inspiring-but-safe guy over the loose cannon.

Captain Lance Murdoch

06-29-2011, 02:35 PM

Recovering Republican makes a good point. Obama IS an elitist and personally I'm sick of it! Why on earth would we want the elite in a job like the presidency? Same deal with the olympic team. Why don't normal Americans who need to lose a few pounds get the chance at the 200 meters? People could relate to them. And don't even get me started on America's university professors! No wonder they all accept evolution and global warming.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 07:49 PM

I'm not gonna argue who was better by whatever yardstick. The fact is that nobody with a pulse would have wanted to have a beer with Nixon. .

My late father thought Nixon was a great man and stuck up for him even after he resigned.

.
Maybe you're unfamiliar with our system of government, and the limits to what a President can do without the concurrence of Congress.

I recommend the Constitution, Articles I and II..

I recommend getting a president who isn't a whiny boob who compares the budget process to his kid's homework. Funny, all those OTHER presidents had no problem turning around bad economies, and they got rewarded with re-election. Even the very evil George W. Bush.

Oh, good: so there's no difference IYHO from someone who tells the truth 99% of the time, and gets it wrong 1% of the time, from someone who does the reverse. If Obama ever has said something that was incorrect, it's 'both sides do it.'
.

You know what, I'm not one of these people who spends morning, noon and night hating Obama. But at least be a LITTLE bit objective. By any standard of first term presidents, he has more in common at this point with Bush-41 and Carter than Clinton or Reagan.

Really Not All That Bright

06-29-2011, 07:58 PM

Funny, all those OTHER presidents had no problem turning around bad economies, and they got rewarded with re-election. Even the very evil George W. Bush.
George W. Bush turned around an economy, alright, but not in the sense you're implying.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 08:06 PM

Better than if Hanoi John and Caribou Barbie has gotten into the White House, thanks for asking..

Okay, if you want to resort to name calling, it just shows your argument is kind of weak, don't it?

Really?? I'm making more than I did in 2008. Maybe the problem here is you. .

When I used to argue with the Wingnuts on Townhall, they usually resorted to personal attacks. Nice to see the Moonbats aren't much better. It's refreshing to my notion of balance in the universe.

Seriously, guy, I was back to better than I was within a year of setback in the 92 and 01 recessions... And those were more serious setbacks for me personally, really. Longer periods of unemployment and shopping a weaker resume. So I have to conclude, if things aren't getting better quickly, it probably has to do with the guy in the White House.

Now, if I got the "Tar and Feathers" concession, I might see some real wealth.

Elitist: Code word for "He's smarter than I am, more successful, and I blame him for my perceived inadequacies.".

No, I blame him for his incompetence, stupidity and bad leadership. Truly wise people respect the opinions of others. Obama is kind of arrogant, and probably not well liked by his own party. You don't think there are more than a few Democrats who will happily throw him under the bus next year?

.
Ain't seein' a whole of ideas about how the President, all by himself, would "fix this." I don't really see a whole lot of ideas coming from the GOP and the rabid right-wing blogosphere. Just a lot of Tourette-Syndrome-like spoutings of "Tax cuts! Tax cuts! Tax cuts!" Never mind the fact that the large corporations, posting record profits and paying their CEOs at higher rates than ever before, are nevertheless sitting on their piles of cash and not hiring more workers, forcing their current workforce slave away at 175% of their capability under the threat of No Longer Being Lucky To Have A Job. Never mind that, it's all Obama's fault. Go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better..

Keep playing that class warfare card..

I agree, tax cuts aren't doing the job, because capital isn't the problem. Employment is the problem, and so many places are finding ways to do more with less. But stimulus (remember "Unemployment won't go above 8%"?) hasn't worked, either, other than to reward his union buddies.

but you see, what has Obama really done to encourage those CEO's to hire?

Yes, because telling anybody that they are being immature and just pain stupid is wrong..

So beliveing in God and thinking you have a right to defend your family is 'immature" and "wrong". (incidently, I'm an atheist and I don't own a gun or have handled one since I left the army, but I am interested in how you defend the "Bitter Clingers" comment.)

. Why wear seatbelts? You're just going to make people feel they're bad drivers, and they'll think you are "snooty." :rolleyes: God forbid anybody tells the truth in this country...

I usually wear a seat belt, but I don't want the government telling me I HAVE to wear one. I certainly don't want them using the one time I forgot to put it on as an excuse to pull me over and extort me for $55.00.

Recovering Republican

06-29-2011, 08:13 PM

Absolutely. But if Bachmann is the Republican nominee, voters will hold their noses and vote for the no-longer-inspiring-but-safe guy over the loose cannon.

Now you see, Buddy, this is where I have to go into "Old Guy" mode.

I remember in 1980, we heard Democrats saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan, and how the PILE OF FAIL(TM) that was Jimmy Carter would get re-elected because no one would elect someone as 'scary" as Reagan. Why Reagan was going to BLOW UP THE WORLD!!!!

And under Carter, unemployment was only at 7.4%.

Oh, wait. Reagan won 45 states. And in 1984, he won 49 states. Would have won 50 if he spent in Minnesota.

9.1% unemployment is NOT safe. I don't feel safe, and I have a job.

Here's the thing. I was really willing to give Obama a chance. I even agree with him on Health Care reform. But he simply hasn't performed.

I'm hoping we can get someone moderate on the GOP side. Not Romney, because I don't like the US of A becoming a subsidary of the LDS.

But what I'm seeing on the Wingnut side is that they know they probably can nominate the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and beat this guy.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

06-29-2011, 09:21 PM

Please don't wear your seat belt on my account.

Chronos

06-29-2011, 10:17 PM

I agree, tax cuts aren't doing the job, because capital isn't the problem. Employment is the problem, and so many places are finding ways to do more with less. But stimulus (remember "Unemployment won't go above 8%"?) hasn't worked, either, other than to reward his union buddies. That's not two separate statements, as you imply with the "either". The reason the stimulus didn't work was because so much of it was in the form of

wait for it

tax cuts.

CaptMurdock

06-30-2011, 12:37 AM

Okay, if you want to resort to name calling, it just shows your argument is kind of weak, don't it?

And you would know, wouldn't you?

Recovering Republican

06-30-2011, 05:20 AM

That's not two separate statements, as you imply with the "either". The reason the stimulus didn't work was because so much of it was in the form of

wait for it

tax cuts.

The real reason Stimulus didn't work was because it was a horrible idea.

But if your guy is going to run on the excuse platform, good luck with that.

Now, I'll be fair here, I thought some of what he did helped. He continued TARP, which saved the banking industry. He saved the Auto Industry. Things would have been a lot worse without the bailout.

But largely, the guy has done more whining about the Republicans, Wall Street and even his own party than he's provided real leadership.

And Like I said, I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy is taking on a whole new luster compared to this guy.

Recovering Republican

06-30-2011, 05:21 AM

Please don't wear your seat belt on my account.

Another notion that went right over your head, didn't it?

Really Not All That Bright

06-30-2011, 08:48 AM

I remember in 1980, we heard Democrats saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan, and how the PILE OF FAIL(TM) that was Jimmy Carter would get re-elected because no one would elect someone as 'scary" as Reagan. Why Reagan was going to BLOW UP THE WORLD!!!!
Who thought Reagan was scary, and why? I wasn't around, but it's always been my understanding that he was pretty moderate as governor of California.

Gyrate

06-30-2011, 10:42 AM

Who thought Reagan was scary, and why? I wasn't around, but it's always been my understanding that he was pretty moderate as governor of California.Reagan was a pretty good saber-rattler and advocated a tough-talking stance to the USSR that made some people nervous. He also had his share of military actions, including the questionable (Libya) and the highly dubious (Grenada). Add to that the enormous military expansion and Reagan appeared awfully keen on pursuing a more aggressive form of international diplomacy.

In hindsight, of course, he was just a big ol' pussycat.

Tom Scud

06-30-2011, 11:05 AM

I understand that at the time, the right went completely ballistic when he started talking to Gorbachev.

Folacin

06-30-2011, 11:46 AM

Who thought Reagan was scary, and why? I wasn't around, but it's always been my understanding that he was pretty moderate as governor of California.

1980 was my junior year in college. We had a college sponsored election-watch party, and the more liberal folks (of which there were a lot) were really pissing off the more conservative folks with there Nazi salutes and etc. when it became obvious that Carter had lost.

There was a lot of fear that he'd take us to war (Ronnie Raygun was a favorite epithet).

RTFirefly

06-30-2011, 12:09 PM

My late father thought Nixon was a great man and stuck up for him even after he resigned. This forum isn't the place to say what I'd think of your father, so I'll just point out that you're changing the subject again.

I recommend getting a president who isn't a whiny boob who compares the budget process to his kid's homework. Funny, all those OTHER presidents had no problem turning around bad economies, and they got rewarded with re-election. Even the very evil George W. Bush. I still recommend reading the Constitution, but now I'd add a basic economic primer to that.

Post-WWII recessions have largely been caused by the Fed deciding that inflation's starting to take off, so they raise interest rates, choking off economic growth. Then when things have cooled down, they lower interest rates, and things take off again.

The crash of 2008 was caused by the Bush Administration deliberately falling asleep at the switch and letting Wall Street do whatever it wanted. (And this was after a piss-poor recovery from the extremely mild 2001 recession. The net effect of the Bush Administration on the U.S. economy has been the worst of any President since Herbert Hoover.) And the Fed can't lower interest rates to make the recession go away, because they're already at zero.

So other remedies have to be brought into play, and Obama does kinda need Congress' cooperation for that.

You know what, I'm not one of these people who spends morning, noon and night hating Obama. But at least be a LITTLE bit objective. By any standard of first term presidents, he has more in common at this point with Bush-41 and Carter than Clinton or Reagan.I see you changed the subject again. We were talking about honesty. Since nobody's criticized either Carter or Bush-41 on that score, I guess this means you've conceded the point.

Recovering Republican

06-30-2011, 05:55 PM

Who thought Reagan was scary, and why? I wasn't around, but it's always been my understanding that he was pretty moderate as governor of California.

Well, I was around.

I remember him being called a "Warmonger". I remember ABC producing an awful mini-series called "The Day After" about how nuclear war would really suck. Just in time for the 1984 election, as I recall.

Now here's the ironic thing, and where I part company with my former compatriots at the GOP.

Reagan also did a lot of things that would get him written out of the family bible.

He reformed social security instead of privatizing it.
He granted amnesty to 3 million illegals.
He repealed many of the tax breaks he granted in 1981 in 1986.

There were a whole lot of other things he did that made him more of a pragmatist than an idealogue....not that anyone on left or right would admit that today.

gonzomax

07-02-2011, 03:20 PM

The Repubs have moved far to the right since Reagan. The Teabaggers have dragged the down a Libertarian rathole they can not escape.
Reagan was responsible for the anti government memes that the Repubs have adopted. He was responsible for gutting regulation . We have all seen how well that worked out in the financial and pollution sectors.
yet even as far right as he was, he does not approach the new Republicans.

Sam Stone

07-02-2011, 04:00 PM

That's just not true. Reagan wanted to cut all sorts of government programs and services. He wanted to dismantle the Department of Education. He cut top marginal rates to 28%, and eventually raised them back to 31%, but that was it. He broke up the air traffic controller's union.

The reason he didn't do more domestically to shrink government was because he was focused on the cold war and building up the military and confronting the Soviets, and had a pretty full plate. In addition, the economy came roaring back and was quite strong throughout his last term and a half, and that takes the pressure of making changes in the economy.

Also, Reagan had to deal with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, and it's the House that originates spending bills. Therefore, he was quite limited in what he could achieve domestically. In foreign policy the President has a lot more leeway for executive action, and even so he had to bargain away some of his domestic priorities to get congressional support for his foreign policy, which he considered more important at the time.

I've read a lot of what Reagan has written, including speeches, interviews, his memoirs, and various biographies. I've also read the memoirs of his budget director and other administration officials. He was very much an ideological small government conservative. The people that surrounded him were hard-core small government people. George Shultz was a free-market economist from the Chicago school and a disciple of Milton Friedman's. David Stockman, his budget director, was a fiscal hawk who wanted much deeper cuts in government.

The biggest criticism of him as a squish on small government came from David Stockman, who said that Reagan was simply too nice when it came down to making the actual cuts. He'd say he wanted deep cuts in government spending, but each time Stockman would come to him with a plan, Reagan would say, "oh, no, we can't cut THAT. Find me something else to cut." Stockman felt that Reagan had the intellectual belief in small government, but when it came right down to it he didn't want anyone to suffer from budget cuts. But other administration officials say it had more to do with Reagan having to cut deals with Democrats, or with his political intuition that the kind of cuts Stockman wanted just weren't politically feasible.

Reagan had a degree in economics, and his biggest influences were Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. He believed in free trade and free markets.

If Reagan were around today, he would be considered the 'scary right-wing candidate'.

That said, I do think Reagan would be more willing to entertain modest tax increases if that's what it took to get a deal to cut the budget. He would be terrified by the current fiscal meltdown of the U.S, even though he ran the deficit up a lot himself.

Crane

07-03-2011, 06:46 AM

Reagan - a corrupt administration lead by a man without political will. But, that's off topic. Sombody should start another Reagan thread.

Crane

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 07:41 AM

Reagan - a corrupt administration lead by a man without political will. But, that's off topic. Sombody should start another Reagan thread.

Crane

Lots of stuff named after Reagan.

I don't think anyone is going to be naming anything after Obama.

Crane

07-03-2011, 09:31 AM

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 11:32 AM

Perhaps so - However, Obama has faced massive challenges and handled them well.

Reagan had 8 years of relative calm. His foriegn policy was a disaster.

The Reagan icon craze is Republican fluff. It has nothing to do with the mans' performance in the White House, except possibly that he was not as bad as Nixon.

Scholars already rank Obama above Reagan, but I doubt we will ever have an aircraft carrier named the 'Obama".

Crane

Guy, I remember the Reagan years, and the Carter years that preceded them. "calm" isn't exactly how I'd describe them, at least not at the begining. By the end, yeah, we were pretty calm, Reagan had done a lot to restore the national pride and confidence that we had lost during the 1970's, when we had real open discussions about whether the Russians, the Arabs or the Japanese were going to take us over. Today we are discussing whether the Chinese are going to take us over. I don't think it's a real threat, but the fact we are having the discussion isn't a good sign.

I don't pay much attention to "Scholars" for that reason. I live out here in the real world. I remember the Reagan years as probably some of the best ones of my life. I am not going to look back at the Obama years nearly as fondly.

CaptMurdock

07-03-2011, 11:56 AM

"National pride and confidence." Uh-huh. Daddy, did we win the war in Greneda? No we sure didn't worry about the Russians, the Arabs or the Japanese taking us over in the 80's -- we were too busy wondering where the best place to relocated in order to dodge the nuclear holocaust that we came within a body-hair of experiencing. Of course, Star Wars was supposed to save us, even though it didn't have a prayer of working.

So I'm supposed to be impressed that they named an aircraft carrier after Reagan? Given the blank check he gave to the military-industrial complex back in the day, I'm surprised they didn't rename the Pentagon after him.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 12:21 PM

Crane

07-03-2011, 01:58 PM

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 02:34 PM

I never understood the pride in America problem. We had landed men on the moon and were in a leadership position in science, semiconductors and computers. American exceptionalism was at its' peak.

Reagan was the beginning of the end.

Crane

Well, if you see us at the end or in an end process, that might a bit of your problem.

I see that people did see a decline, of people burning our flag in contempt, etc. Of Iran taking hostages and there still being Iranians alive afterwards.

Reagan restored that pride, which declined under the shiftless Nixon and Gutless Carter.

So why all this hostility towards Reagan. Were you like an Air Traffic controller or something?

Chronos

07-03-2011, 03:12 PM

Of Iran taking hostages and there still being Iranians alive afterwards. Uh, yes, of course there were Iranians alive afterwards. What, you think we should have glassed the entire country?

Justin_Bailey

07-03-2011, 04:11 PM

I don't think anyone is going to be naming anything after Obama.

:dubious: Obama is the first black president. Regardless of what he did in his four (or eight) years, things were already being named after him in November 2010.

I exaggerate of course, but just by being elected Obama leapfrogged the lowest tier of presidents. Where he ends up is debateable, but being responsible for bin Laden's death probably pushed him up another rung.

Crane

07-03-2011, 04:22 PM

07-03-2011, 04:26 PM

:dubious: Obama is the first black president. Regardless of what he did in his four (or eight) years, things were already being named after him in November 2010.

I exaggerate of course, but just by being elected Obama leapfrogged the lowest tier of presidents. Where he ends up is debateable, but being responsible for bin Laden's death probably pushed him up another rung.

No exaggeration - by August 2010, Obama already had 7 schools named after him (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-elementary-school-maryland-adds-namings-obama/story?id=11461683).

Justin_Bailey

07-03-2011, 04:29 PM

No exaggeration - by August 2010, Obama already had 7 schools named after him (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-elementary-school-maryland-adds-namings-obama/story?id=11461683).

:eek: Damn, I stand corrected.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 04:50 PM

No hostility, just oberved facts.

The hostage situation was just political theater by Iran.

Reagan incompetence was real. There was the Sabra snd Shatila fiasco. As a result Reagan lost 241 killed because the 'White House' countered the decision of the commander on the ground to move his troops to a defensible position.

And there was Iran-Contra and providing the waivers to Saddam that allowed him to buy the chemicals to gas his citizens.

Oh yeah, the Grenada invasion where our Commander in Chief almost got beat by a local police force.

Then there was the Savings and Loan fiasco and the HUD scandal

Like I said, I never had a problem with American Exceptionalism. Reagan made it through 8 years, but he was nothing special.

Crane

These were really your best examples?

As I recall Sharbra and Shatilla, that was Lebanese Christians killing Palestinians while the Israelis looked the other way. The occupation you complain about was done under UN Auspices.

I knew Grenada vets. The Grenadans didn't fight at all, it was the Fidel's boys the 82nd had to deal with.

Iran-Contra- Seems to me we came out okay in that one. Saddam was checked, we got rid of Ortega (for a while). Wins all around. Our policy was to play Saddam and Iran off against each other, and frankly, it kind of worked out well.

Recovering Republican

07-03-2011, 04:52 PM

Uh, yes, of course there were Iranians alive afterwards. What, you think we should have glassed the entire country?

Works for me.

Gyrate

07-03-2011, 05:51 PM

Works for me.
Let's examine how nuking Tehran would have worked out:

Downside:
- Hostages dead
- Price of oil skyrocketing during an already unstable period for oil prices
- Making the rest of the Middle East REALLY angry at us, including our allies in the region
- If you consider how much terrorist attention we got for our limited involvement in the region, multiply that by a few order of magnitude. Terrorism a-gogo, including probably a much higher probability of someone setting off a nuke in a US city.
- Making the rest of the world pretty pissed off too
- Massive economic impact as a result of the previous items
- Various unpleasant environmental factors
- Oh, and since Iran borders on the then-USSR, leapfrogging the nuclear clock several seconds towards midnight

Upside:
- People like you getting to shout "USA! USA! USA!"

So...really a pretty balanced political and economic equation there, Mr Reality.

Chronos

07-03-2011, 10:55 PM

OK, now I know I don't have to bother to even attempt to take Recovering Republican seriously. Life's too short to bother trying to reason with folks who advocate mass murder.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-03-2011, 11:02 PM

OK, now I know I don't have to bother to even attempt to take Recovering Republican seriously. Life's too short to bother trying to reason with folks who advocate mass murder.

And remember when you're voting next fall--RR's a moderate Republican.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 05:53 AM

And remember when you're voting next fall--RR's a moderate Republican.

So when Truman nuked Hiroshima, you guys thought he was Mr. Sweetness and Light?

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 06:07 AM

Let's examine how nuking Tehran would have worked out:

Downside:
- Hostages dead.

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. And I promise you, nobody else would have taken hostages again after that.

- Price of oil skyrocketing during an already unstable period for oil prices.

Actually, Iranian Oil was already largely off the world market at that point, and the damage had been done. The Gas lines were what helped do Mr. Carter in.

- Making the rest of the Middle East REALLY angry at us, including our allies in the region .

Actually, the rest of the Middle East would have been thrilled we got rid of the Iranian menace for them. Why do you think they all gave Saddam Money when Saddam invaded Iran? The Iranians scared the hell out of these dictators and kings.

. - If you consider how much terrorist attention we got for our limited involvement in the region, multiply that by a few order of magnitude. Terrorism a-gogo, including probably a much higher probability of someone setting off a nuke in a US city. .

The main reason we have a terror problem in the Middle East is because we support Israel. Getting rid of a Shi'ite government that was hated by the vast majority of Sunnis in the region wouldn't make that much of a difference.

- Making the rest of the world pretty pissed off too.

Again, the rest of the world wouldn't miss these maniacs.

- - Massive economic impact as a result of the previous items-

Again, the massive economic damage was already done.

- - Various unpleasant environmental factors-

Are there a lot of snail darters and spotted owls in Iran?

- - Oh, and since Iran borders on the then-USSR, leapfrogging the nuclear clock several seconds towards midnight-

Actually, the Soviets would have been as happy as we were. They had all those Muslim Republics in the region, and the last thing they wanted was those folks getting the Old Time Religion.

- Upside:
- People like you getting to shout "USA! USA! USA!"

So...really a pretty balanced political and economic equation there, Mr Reality.

Given the fact that the Iranians are about this close to getting their own nuke, which will in turn make Saudi Arabia and Egypt want their own, think of all the trouble we could have saved.

That assumes Israel doesn't do exactly what I suggested to prevent that from happening, which they probably will.

Of course, the simpler solution would have been sending a CIA hit team to kill Khomeini in Paris before he got to Iran, perhaps by sticking a pork chop in his mouth and putting him in bed with a dead hooker. But Jimmy didn't do that kind of thing.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 06:34 AM

OK, now I know I don't have to bother to even attempt to take Recovering Republican seriously. Life's too short to bother trying to reason with folks who advocate mass murder.

Right.. So during World War II, when we killed 4 million Germans and 3 million Japanese, was that mass murder?

Nope. It was WAR. and in WAR you kill the enemy.

Iran committed an act of war when they took our embassy. And Jimmy let them get away with it. They still burned him, though, waiting until after Reagan was sworn in to let them go.

Joke told in 1980. "What's black and crisp and glows in the Dark. Iran when Reagan's President."

Hell,the problem now is that not only don't we want to kill the enemy, we want to make extra sure we don't hurt his feelings, either. What a joke.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 06:42 AM

Okay- Back to rating the GOP Feild-

Romney- A lot of money, lots of establishment support, but his main weakness is that he's seen as someone who created the beta version of ObamaCare, he flip-flops on social issues on a whim (indicating no core values) and of course, he's a Mormon. Upside. Seen as a strong business leader.

Bachmann- Only one who gets the bases blood rushing at this point. Charismatic, exciting in a bland field. She could take it, or she could flop.

Palin- Not running.

Perry- Could run away with it if he gets in. Has cred with the establishment, business, Tea Party and Social conservative wings. And he can contrast real economic success to Obama's economic fail.

Gingrich- Can't see him lasting much longer.

Cain- A novelty, but he might have legs because he can self-finance.

Crane

07-04-2011, 07:02 AM

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 07:56 AM

RR,

Good summary, but you leave out 3 pivotal candidates: Pawlenty, Palin and Huntsman.

Pawlenty is the establishment guy, Palin is the nutcase favorite (running or not) and Huntsman is the most presidential of the bunch.

Crane

I wasn't going to vote for Huntsman for the same reason I wasn't going to vote for Romney (I really, really distrust Mormons.)

But the fact so many on the left are singing his praises is probably a good reason, too. I think Republicans have learned their lesson from that little bait and switch the left pulled with McCain. The left truly loved McCain, until he got the nomination, and then he became the anti-Christ. The GOP should no more let MSNBC pick their candidate than the Dems should let Fox do it.

I did mention Palin. I don't think she's running.

Pawlenty I'm not so sure about. I think on paper, he looks great. Successful two term governor (unlike Romney or Palin, who served one or less) Won re-election in one of the more liberal states during the awful year for Republicans of 2006.

Now, personally, I liked Pawlenty, but he's done a couple things I don't like. He's pandering to the religious right, which always makes me nervous. I mean, seriously, re-instituting DADT? Seriously? What a honkin' waste.

Chronos

07-04-2011, 12:15 PM

Gingrich- Can't see him lasting much longer.
He stopped lasting several weeks ago. I don't know what you have when most of your campaign staff resigns en masse, but whatever it is, it isn't a campaign.

But the fact so many on the left are singing his praises is probably a good reason, too. I think Republicans have learned their lesson from that little bait and switch the left pulled with McCain. The left truly loved McCain, until he got the nomination, and then he became the anti-Christ. The GOP should no more let MSNBC pick their candidate than the Dems should let Fox do it. We were as puzzled about it as you are. He changed, drastically.

Simplicio

07-04-2011, 12:58 PM

But the fact so many on the left are singing his praises is probably a good reason, too. I think Republicans have learned their lesson from that little bait and switch the left pulled with McCain. The left truly loved McCain, until he got the nomination, and then he became the anti-Christ. The GOP should no more let MSNBC pick their candidate than the Dems should let Fox do it.

McCain in 2006 was a major supporter of immigration reform, campaign finance laws and voted against the Bush tax-cuts. Candidate McCain reversed all these positions (and would later renounce cap-and-trade when he ran in 2010). The left moved away from McCain when he moved away from positions the left supported, that's not really a "bait-and-switch", at least on the part of the left.

Watching McCain repudiate the last twenty years of his Congressional service for a chance to head an almost certainly doomed Presidential Ticket was one of the more depressing political acts since I started following politics.

Say what you will about Romney, I was glad to see him (more or less) stand up for his Massachucettes Health Plan. It is his major political accomplishment, and he should be proud of it.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 01:22 PM

We were as puzzled about it as you are. He changed, drastically.

No, he really didn't. I think it's just that as much as you all say you love Republican Moderates, you really don't.

Same thing here in IL. People in the media here praised Mark Kirk for years for being the "sensible moderate" in the IL delegation compared to Pete Roskam and others. Until he ran for Senate, and even though Alexi GuywhosenameIcan'tspell was a crook and incompetant, the usual suspects lined up against him.

Because you are all for Moderates when they annoy conservatives... when they annoy liberals, not so much.

Which is really kind of a shame. Our very bad system already produces too little moderation.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 01:29 PM

McCain in 2006 was a major supporter of immigration reform, campaign finance laws and voted against the Bush tax-cuts. Candidate McCain reversed all these positions (and would later renounce cap-and-trade when he ran in 2010). The left moved away from McCain when he moved away from positions the left supported, that's not really a "bait-and-switch", at least on the part of the left.

I would say on all three of those issues, conditions on the ground changed. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.

Immigration reform might have been a perfectly good idea in 2006 when we were at 4.5% unemployment and clearly, no one wanted to do those jobs. In 2008, when it was up to 6.6% (which is really high, comparitively, the highest it had gotten since 1993) and no one was going to say, "Hey, let's add 12 million more people to the legal job market."

CFR, same deal. the courts struck down so much of McCain-Feingold that what was left was actually counter-productive. And then you got Citizen's United, which has effectively put our politics up to the highest bidder. Somewhere Didius Julianius is having a good laugh.

Say what you will about Romney, I was glad to see him (more or less) stand up for his Massachucettes Health Plan. It is his major political accomplishment, and he should be proud of it.

I don't think he can run away from it.

Simplicio

07-04-2011, 01:35 PM

Immigration reform might have been a perfectly good idea in 2006 when we were at 4.5% unemployment and clearly, no one wanted to do those jobs. In 2008, when it was up to 6.6% (which is really high, comparitively, the highest it had gotten since 1993) and no one was going to say, "Hey, let's add 12 million more people to the legal job market."

Immigration reform was for people already working here, so I don't see how they would be added to the job market. But in anycase, McCain's stance didn't change from waiting for lower unemployment, it changed to being against reform in general.

CFR, same deal. the courts struck down so much of McCain-Feingold that what was left was actually counter-productive. And then you got Citizen's United, which has effectively put our politics up to the highest bidder. Somewhere Didius Julianius is having a good laugh.

Citizen's United was decided in 2010.

I don't think he can run away from it.

I would've said the same thing about McCain and the McCain-Feingold bill, but here we are.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 01:43 PM

Immigration reform was for people already working here, so I don't see how they would be added to the job market. But in anycase, McCain's stance didn't change from waiting for lower unemployment, it changed to being against reform in general.

.

Or he recognized that it was an unsellable position.

Come on, where's the immigration reform Obama promised? That hasn't happened either, even when he had control of both houses of Congress. The electorate would have went nuts.

Simplicio

07-04-2011, 01:59 PM

Or he recognized that it was an unsellable position.

Come on, where's the immigration reform Obama promised? That hasn't happened either, even when he had control of both houses of Congress. The electorate would have went nuts.

He did try and reintroduce it in 2010 (and the smaller DREAM act was reintroduced), but it didn't go anywhere since by that point they needed GOP votes in the Senate, and none were forthcoming.

But I'm not arguing that passing immigration reform was possible, your right the bad economy makes it more difficult. But thats a justification for waiting till the economy is in better shape, not abandoning support for it altogether. The same is true of the Bush tax cuts, extending them for a year or two until the economy gets better is a justifiable position given "changing events on the ground", changing from opposing them to making them permanent isn't (indeed the worsening deficit situation makes it less justifiable then it was in 2001).

Plus we're kind of getting side-tracked, my original point was that liberals liked McCain when he supported several liberal positions, and turned against him when he abandoned those positions. There was no "bait-and-switch". McCain's reasons for changing his positions aren't really relevant to that argument.

gonzomax

07-04-2011, 03:10 PM

Or he recognized that it was an unsellable position.

Come on, where's the immigration reform Obama promised? That hasn't happened either, even when he had control of both houses of Congress. The electorate would have went nuts.

Can you say filibuster? The Repubs in the Senate made it necessary to have to override a filibuster for any legislation to get through.
You had to know that. So why do you keep saying when he had control of both houses. The Repubs blocked everything that they could not water down .

Chronos

07-04-2011, 03:17 PM

And even ignoring the filibuster, the Dems had a majority in the Senate for what, six months or so, between Franken finally getting seated and Ted Kennedy dying.

Simplicio

07-04-2011, 03:33 PM

And even ignoring the filibuster, the Dems had a majority in the Senate for what, six months or so, between Franken finally getting seated and Ted Kennedy dying.

Ummm...they've had a majority in the Senate for most of the last six years. Between Spector starting as a Republican, Frakens slow election, Byrds illness and Kennedy's illness and eventual death they only had a filibuster proof majority for something like 14 weeks.

ElvisL1ves

07-04-2011, 03:46 PM

B'lieve he means "60 votes". Which didn't happen at any time, either - Kennedy was on sick leave, and Lieberman was being Lieberman, even after Franken's victory couldn't be stalled any longer.

Merijeek

07-04-2011, 04:15 PM

Ummm...they've had a majority in the Senate for most of the last six years. Between Spector starting as a Republican, Frakens slow election, Byrds illness and Kennedy's illness and eventual death they only had a filibuster proof majority for something like 14 weeks.

You're forgetting that 'majority' was redefined as sixty-one out of one hundred sometime in November 2008.

-Joe

Chronos

07-04-2011, 04:20 PM

Yeah, I got a bit mixed up, there.

Gyrate

07-04-2011, 04:20 PM

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. And I promise you, nobody else would have taken hostages again after that. I see. In the same way that once those terrorists killed all those people in New York and Washington, America decided never to meddle in the Middle East again.

Why do some people think that those funny foreigners will cower in fear if America demonstrates a little excess force, but when the tables are turned it just makes us madder? It's a right-wing fantasy that nuking Tehran would have cowed our enemies. It would have empowered them.
Actually, Iranian Oil was already largely off the world market at that point, and the damage had been done. The Gas lines were what helped do Mr. Carter in. But a nuclear strike in an oil producing area would have meant that Iranian oil was permanently off the market. That would have had a significant effect. And I'm old enough to remember the gas lines, thank you.
Actually, the rest of the Middle East would have been thrilled we got rid of the Iranian menace for them. Why do you think they all gave Saddam Money when Saddam invaded Iran? The Iranians scared the hell out of these dictators and kings. You think Israel's biggest supporter demonstrating a willingness to drop nukes in the Middle East would have made them happy? Wow.
The main reason we have a terror problem in the Middle East is because we support Israel. Getting rid of a Shi'ite government that was hated by the vast majority of Sunnis in the region wouldn't make that much of a difference. Getting rid of the government, yes. Getting rid of an entire capital city and its civilian population, no.
Again, the rest of the world wouldn't miss these maniacs. But they wouldn't want to be associated with the bigger maniacs either, i.e. us.
Again, the massive economic damage was already done. A drop in the ocean by comparison.
Are there a lot of snail darters and spotted owls in Iran? No, but there are people. And people in Pakistan and India too.
Actually, the Soviets would have been as happy as we were. They had all those Muslim Republics in the region, and the last thing they wanted was those folks getting the Old Time Religion. Now I know you're not serious. Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian target anywhere in the world would have been seen as a majorly provocative act in that it would have demonstrated that we were willing to use nuclear weapons with minimal instigation. Doing so in a bordering country to the USSR would have been seen as a direct threat. After that, the Soviets could never have assumed that we would not use nuclear weapons on them for even minor reasons and would have been much more likely to launch a pre-emptive strike should tensions rise. Given the fact that the Iranians are about this close to getting their own nuke, which will in turn make Saudi Arabia and Egypt want their own, think of all the trouble we could have saved. Genocide. Is there any problem it can't solve? Of course, the simpler solution would have been sending a CIA hit team to kill Khomeini in Paris before he got to Iran, perhaps by sticking a pork chop in his mouth and putting him in bed with a dead hooker. But Jimmy didn't do that kind of thing.No, Jimmy did Operation Eagle Claw, which failed for reasons that were not remotely Carter's fault. Had it succeeded, the 1980 election would have been a very different affair.

Recovering Republican

07-04-2011, 07:18 PM

scabpicker

07-04-2011, 11:16 PM

We NUKED Japan. Japan has been very well behaved since then.

Our response to Mulsim barbarism has been, "Oh, gee, maybe we should try to understand their greivences, and we'd better not do anything that will hurt their feelings."

You might have noticed that those wars caused us to pile up a massive debt. I am not sure we've even paid WWII off yet. You're howling about how much we pay presently, but you want to keep ringing up new debts? I am glad your schizophrenic policies haven't been adopted by any major party...oh wait, they have.

Recovering Republican

07-05-2011, 05:19 AM

You might have noticed that those wars caused us to pile up a massive debt. I am not sure we've even paid WWII off yet. You're howling about how much we pay presently, but you want to keep ringing up new debts? I am glad your schizophrenic policies haven't been adopted by any major party...oh wait, they have.

Actually, we had WWII largely paid off by the 1950's. And we've spent more on the "War on Poverty" than a war on anything, and how's that working out for you?

Usually, we end up with a war because we failed to act decisively. If we had finished off Saddam in 1991, when there was nothing between Stormin' Norman and Baghdad, we wouldn't have had to deal with him again a decade later.

Maus Magill

07-05-2011, 07:24 AM

Actually, we had WWII largely paid off by the 1950's.
Because we had sane tax rates then.

Chefguy

07-05-2011, 11:57 AM

Actually, we had WWII largely paid off by the 1950's. And we've spent more on the "War on Poverty" than a war on anything, and how's that working out for you?

Usually, we end up with a war because we failed to act decisively. If we had finished off Saddam in 1991, when there was nothing between Stormin' Norman and Baghdad, we wouldn't have had to deal with him again a decade later.

And we "had" to deal with him a decade later because. . .?

RTFirefly

07-05-2011, 01:18 PM

And we "had" to deal with him a decade later because. . .?Because sometimes a man's just gotta do what a man's gotta do.

And when that man is George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, then we find ourselves in a shitload of trouble.

Gyrate

07-05-2011, 04:16 PM

Okay, Gyrate, I know you want to live in a fantasy world where Jimmy Carter wasn't the biggest effin' fail in American history, and we really came out of the humiliating Iran Hostage Crisis okay. I think some fat commie cow tried to make that sale to me when I was in college in 1984, and it was even more laughable. When you're done arguing with the voices in your head, perhaps you might consider the position I actually set out which falls somewhere between the hagiography you seem to think I wrote and the "Carter sucks, Reagan rules!" position you hold.(Of course, Obama is working out to be even a bigger fail, so it might work out for you.) I know! 9.1% unemployment, right? I mean, what's with that guy - the Republicans drove this bus off a cliff and for some reason Obama has been unable to convert it into a plane while in freefall and with all the Republicans in Congress throwing their poop at him. How incompetent is that guy? Good thing the GOP candidates have a plan to save this country, right? Carter...failed. That's all we really need to know, right?
That's all you seem to have read. The other words appear to have eluded you.Again, people who put themselves in danger by going along with their leaders committing an act of war against the US. Congratulations - you've just given the exact same justification that terrorists give for hitting civilian targets. Way to take the moral high ground.What is forgotten is that about the same time, another mob of angry students tried to take the Soviet Embassy. Well, guess what, the Iranian Guards moved in and put the kaybosh on that nonsense. Something about a bunch of guys named Ivan showing up with machine guns. Something, yes. I'm sure it was all to do with the machine guns and not anything to do with the Iranian-Soviet relationship at the time.Dirty little secret about the Middle East. Hatred of Israel is largely a show. None of these countries want nukes because Israel has them, but if Iran gets them and no one does anything about it, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will want them, too. That's so secret, no one else believes it but you.Why do we think that? Proven track record.

We bombed Germany to the stone age. We haven't had a problem with Germany since. In fact, they are STILL apologizing for Hitler.

We NUKED Japan. Japan has been very well behaved since then.Yeah, that whole "Marshall Plan" thing was completely irrelevant. Lots of countries have been overrun, pillaged, occupied etc over the centuries, and the grievances caused by this have often later caused new wars. What we did in Germany and Japan that was important was not just tearing down their society but building it back up again. The Germans aren't "well-behaved" because the US frightens them; they're well-behaved because war is bad for business, especially war launched for the sole purpose of national pride. Maybe we should learn something from them.
Our response to Mulsim barbarism has been, "Oh, gee, maybe we should try to understand their greivences, and we'd better not do anything that will hurt their feelings."Yeah - better to just kill them all. That's always a good plan.
And we "had" to deal with him a decade later because. . .?Because Bush Senior thought that if we actually went into Iraq and overthrew him we'd end up stuck in an unresolvable quagmire for years on end. But Bush Junior showed us how wrong he was, right? Right?

Really Not All That Bright

07-05-2011, 10:46 PM

Usually, we end up with a war because we failed to act decisively. If we had finished off Saddam in 1991, when there was nothing between Stormin' Norman and Baghdad, we wouldn't have had to deal with him again a decade later.
Dick Cheney was between Stormin' Norman and Baghdad. We ostensibly didn't finish off Saddam in 1991 because "it would be a quagmire (http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2007/08/16/cheney_on_iraq_its_a_quagmire/)". Given how things have gone in Iraq this time around, there's little reason to think we'd be out of there today.

Recovering Republican

07-06-2011, 05:14 AM

Dick Cheney was between Stormin' Norman and Baghdad. We ostensibly didn't finish off Saddam in 1991 because "it would be a quagmire (http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2007/08/16/cheney_on_iraq_its_a_quagmire/)". Given how things have gone in Iraq this time around, there's little reason to think we'd be out of there today.

Well, I think there would have been a lot of differences.

First, there would have been more international help in 1991, as it was an UN sanctioned effort.

Second, we had 7 divisions available in 1991, as opposed to only 4 this time.

Zakalwe

07-06-2011, 06:28 AM

First, there would have been more international help in 1991, as it was an UN sanctioned effort.

Second, we had 7 divisions available in 1991, as opposed to only 4 this time.What makes you think that there would have been international help? The UN mandate did NOT include the conquering of Iraq.

What would the extra 3 divisions have done to prevent Iraq from becoming a quagmire? In case you didn't notice, it isn't the Iraqi military we've been fighting for 6 years.

Recovering Republican

07-06-2011, 06:38 AM

What makes you think that there would have been international help? The UN mandate did NOT include the conquering of Iraq.

What would the extra 3 divisions have done to prevent Iraq from becoming a quagmire? In case you didn't notice, it isn't the Iraqi military we've been fighting for 6 years.

No, it's mostly been Al Qaeda, which barely existed in 1991. (That was Bill Clinton's 8 years of neglect on that one.)

More to the point, at that point, we had Iraq completely down on on the mat. It would have been a much easier campaign. Saddam hadn't spent years developing a contingency plan of spider holes to run a resistance from, he'd have been caught flat footed.

Really Not All That Bright

07-06-2011, 09:02 AM

Well, I think there would have been a lot of differences.

First, there would have been more international help in 1991, as it was an UN sanctioned effort.

Second, we had 7 divisions available in 1991, as opposed to only 4 this time.
Cheney's entire speech was predicated on the fact that there would not be international help for an occupation of Iraq.

The Iraqi army was twice as large in 1991, so we required far fewer troops this time.

Gyrate

07-06-2011, 11:02 AM

No, it's mostly been Al Qaeda, which barely existed in 1991. (That was Bill Clinton's 8 years of neglect on that one.)Yes, it's terrible how Clinton balked at taking on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp), especially in the face of so much Republican support for such a campaign.
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strinkes in an effort to kill Osama bin laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people as Arlen Spector (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.And rightly so. I mean, someone got a blowjob! Investigating that was a far more important project to spend money and time on than catching some foreign guy.

pseudotriton ruber ruber

07-06-2011, 11:59 AM

someone got a blowjob!

No, no, no. A DEMOCRAT got a blowjob from a woman. When a Republican gets a blowjob from a guy, that's not newsworthy.

Recovering Republican

07-06-2011, 07:34 PM

Yes, it's terrible how Clinton balked at taking on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp), especially in the face of so much Republican support for such a campaign.
And rightly so. I mean, someone got a blowjob! Investigating that was a far more important project to spend money and time on than catching some foreign guy.

Actually, I've heard it argued that Clinton's "Wag the Dog 1" attacks were probably counter-productive. The Aspirin Factory in the Sudan had nothing to do with Bin Laden after all (whooopsie) and the camp in Afghanistan had been abandoned. But the very fact he took action boosted Bin Laden's street cred.

Sorry, one attack and then forget it doesn't impress.

kaylasdad99

07-06-2011, 09:31 PM

I don't think anyone is going to be naming anything after Obama.We call our cat "Brock," but his given name is really "Barack." So there.

As for me, I won't use any structure with Ronnie's name on it.

Frank

07-06-2011, 10:12 PM

Actually, I've heard it argued that Clinton's "Wag the Dog 1" attacks were probably counter-productive. The Aspirin Factory in the Sudan had nothing to do with Bin Laden after all (whooopsie) and the camp in Afghanistan had been abandoned. But the very fact he took action boosted Bin Laden's street cred.

Sorry, one attack and then forget it doesn't impress.
Wait, weren't you arguing that Clinton didn't take action against bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Now, you're arguing that even if he did, so what?

Have I got that right?

Chronos

07-06-2011, 10:35 PM

Wait, weren't you arguing that Clinton didn't take action against bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Now, you're arguing that even if he did, so what?No, now he's arguing that he did but that he shouldn't have, since he just made things worse. And I'll bet that Obama's attacks have really emboldened bin Laden.

jsgoddess

07-06-2011, 10:48 PM

No, now he's arguing that he did but that he shouldn't have, since he just made things worse. And I'll bet that Obama's attacks have really emboldened bin Laden.

Now bin Laden has Obama right where he wants him!

Recovering Republican

07-07-2011, 05:57 AM

Wait, weren't you arguing that Clinton didn't take action against bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Now, you're arguing that even if he did, so what?

Have I got that right?

I'm arguing INEFFECTIVE action used as a distraction from a sex scandal actually made matters worse.

How about instead of doing a showy missile strike, you send out a CIA hit team to get this guy. If Johnny Walker Lihnd could get next to this guy, a CIA hit team could have.

But the Goal of "Wag the Dog, part 1" was never to get Bin Laden. It was to quickly change the subject of the 24 hour news cycle from "I just spent the last eight months lying to you" to "eeeeeek, Terrorists!"

And then he never talked about it again.

The effect it had on the Middle East, however, was different. It said to every disaffected dirtbag looking to get 76 virgins in the afterlife, "Wow, he stood up to the US and lived. The Hand of Allah must truly be on him!"

Now, I'm a fair guy. I criticize Reagan for arming these maniacs in afghanistan to start with. I criticize Bush for not finishing the job once he started it. But Clinton deserves some of the blame, too.

Gyrate

07-07-2011, 06:13 AM

This is just the break that the McCainbin Laden campaign has been looking for.I'm arguing INEFFECTIVE action used as a distraction from a sex scandal actually made matters worse.

How about instead of doing a showy missile strike, you send out a CIA hit team to get this guy. If Johnny Walker Lihnd could get next to this guy, a CIA hit team could have. You kinda missed the point that the Afghanistan camp had been abandoned a few HOURS previously. Military strikes take a bit of planning. Bin Laden got lucky.But the Goal of "Wag the Dog, part 1" was never to get Bin Laden. It was to quickly change the subject of the 24 hour news cycle from "I just spent the last eight months lying to you" to "eeeeeek, Terrorists!" For someone who insists that they're a "recovering Republican" you sure do spout the party line verbatim. You criticize Clinton for not doing enough, then you criticize him for doing too much, then you criticize him for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (because you were there and know exactly what his motivations were). Clinton could have punched bin Laden in the face personally and you'd be complaining he used the wrong kind of brass knuckles.And then he never talked about it again. No, he took a more cautious approach to the intelligence he was receiving to avoid any more failed military strikes, precisely to avoid more of this:The effect it had on the Middle East, however, was different. It said to every disaffected dirtbag looking to get 76 virgins in the afterlife, "Wow, he stood up to the US and lived. The Hand of Allah must truly be on him!" Yes, it's too bad we didn't take the feelings of the Muslims into consideration before we started bombing them.

Whoa. I think we've gone throught the looking-glass here.Now, I'm a fair guy. I criticize Reagan for arming these maniacs in afghanistan to start with. I criticize Bush for not finishing the job once he started it. But Clinton deserves some of the blame, too.How about criticizing the Republicans in Congress for pulling this "Wag the dog" bullshit? Then as now, they were more interested in hobbling a Democratic president than actually considering what's best for the country. I don't see anything different in the current crop of GOP candidates, who are running on the "It's Obama's recession, they're Obama's wars, vote for us because we're not him!" ticket without presenting any alternative plans at all for how to fix the mess that the administration BEFORE Obama's got us into.

Recovering Republican

07-07-2011, 06:31 AM

For someone who insists that they're a "recovering Republican" you sure do spout the party line verbatim. You criticize Clinton for not doing enough, then you criticize him for doing too much, then you criticize him for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (because you were there and know exactly what his motivations were). Clinton could have punched bin Laden in the face personally and you'd be complaining he used the wrong kind of brass knuckles.

I'm going to explain this to you one more time.

Recovering from the REpublican BS does not mean that I swallow the Democratic BS whole. It's like saying I gave up drinking but now I've become a full blown coke freak, like that's an improvement. I DID very specifically criticize Reagan and Bush's handling of Bin Laden as well as Clinton's.

He did it the WRONG WAY for the wrong reasons. He did it in a way where he ignored a lot of his top brass, who said it wasn't going to work.

Let's be blunt and honest here. Better men than Clinton have had to resign for the same thing. Both parties. Clinton decided to tough it out because hey, it really is difficult to get rid of a president. So he dragged a legal process out, and then tried to change the subject.

How about criticizing the Republicans in Congress for pulling this "Wag the dog" bullshit? Then as now, they were more interested in hobbling a Democratic president than actually considering what's best for the country.

Actually, the best thing for the country at that point would have been for Clinton to resign, let Al Gore finish out his term. Come on, guy, Ensign, Weiner, Sanford, Spitzer, and those are only the recent examples. Once you become the punch line for a dirty joke, you're done. It's not a written rule, but it's usually accepted in politics and business. Except Clinton decided, "Naw, screw that. They're going to have to impeach me, and I'll send out Larry Flint to dig around their garbage. And I'll launch a few futile, pointless military attacks to change the subject once in a while."

I don't see anything different in the current crop of GOP candidates, who are running on the "It's Obama's recession, they're Obama's wars, vote for us because we're not him!" ticket without presenting any alternative plans at all for how to fix the mess that the administration BEFORE Obama's got us into.

Did you forget 2006 and 2008, where you guys didn't offer any solutions either, other than to just criticize what Bush was doing? Sorry, man, everyone takes advantage of the other guy's misfortunes. I think that was one of the first political lessons I learned in 1979 when Jane Byrne (who was considered a joke up to that point) beat Mayor Bilandic because he wasn't effective in getting a record snowfall cleaned up.

The best antidote against this sort of thing is "Competence".

Gyrate

07-07-2011, 07:20 AM

I'm going to explain this to you one more time.

Recovering from the REpublican BS does not mean that I swallow the Democratic BS whole. It's like saying I gave up drinking but now I've become a full blown coke freak, like that's an improvement. I DID very specifically criticize Reagan and Bush's handling of Bin Laden as well as Clinton's. But my point was that you are saying, word for word, what the GOP BS of the time was. Let's be blunt and honest here. Better men than Clinton have had to resign for the same thing. Both parties. Clinton decided to tough it out because hey, it really is difficult to get rid of a president. So he dragged a legal process out, and then tried to change the subject.

Actually, the best thing for the country at that point would have been for Clinton to resign, let Al Gore finish out his term. Come on, guy, Ensign, Weiner, Sanford, Spitzer, and those are only the recent examples. Once you become the punch line for a dirty joke, you're done. It's not a written rule, but it's usually accepted in politics and business. Except Clinton decided, "Naw, screw that. They're going to have to impeach me, and I'll send out Larry Flint to dig around their garbage.I don't know about you, but I kind of assumed from before his election that he was a horndog. And I said at the time that I would have been neither surprised nor displeased to learn that Hillary was giving him regular kicks to the groin. But I wanted a guy in office who was focused on the economy and Bush had dropped the ball on that one (although he was likely just taking the fall for problems started under Reagan). Unfortunately the Arkansas Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project)thought we should be focused on other things... And I'll launch a few futile, pointless military attacks to change the subject once in a while."So Clinton should have completely ignored the terrorist threat and just quit? And that would have made him a better president? I don't understand your criteria at all.Did you forget 2006 and 2008, where you guys didn't offer any solutions either, other than to just criticize what Bush was doing? Sorry, man, everyone takes advantage of the other guy's misfortunes. Have you been over to Politifact? I'm not arguing that "change" isn't a common refrain in every election but they've got a very long list of actual campaign promises from Obama (including a larger-than-I'm-comfortable-with number of "Broken" and "Stalled" ones, but nonetheless). I think Bush Sr got elected on a campaign of "No New Taxes" and agreeing to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day, and he broke the first one (probably the second one too, but who cares?). If any of the Republicans currently in the race has offered any substantive platforms outside of tax cuts and gay-bashing (besides Ron Paul, who brings the same long laundry list to every election) it hasn't made the papers.
I think that was one of the first political lessons I learned in 1979 when Jane Byrne (who was considered a joke up to that point) beat Mayor Bilandic because he wasn't effective in getting a record snowfall cleaned up.

The best antidote against this sort of thing is "Competence".Obama is incredibly competent. He hasn't done a lot of things I've hoped for but he's already got a long list of actual achievements while in office. He may not be doing things that YOU like and he's certainly not Magic Jesus who can fix all the country's problems with a wave of his wand, but he's certainly getting more done than you'd think from what gets reported.

The best antidote to competence is smear.

Crane

09-28-2011, 05:55 PM

Candidates have come and gone, favorites have been dethroned, and the end is not yet in sight.

Obviously, Perry will self destruct before Iowa. He's the Fred Thompson of 2012.

The others are all boring. There is a very remote chance that Palin will offer a brief burst of interest. Probably won't happen.

And now there's (enter clown on unicycle with sign board) Christy, a Tony Soprano look alike from the state that gave us Spiro T. Agnew. That's a DOA candidate.

So, what's the choice - is it Romney by default?

Crane

pseudotriton ruber ruber

09-28-2011, 07:12 PM

Christy, a Tony Soprano look alike from the state that gave us Spiro T. Agnew.

Agnew was from Maryland.

Crane

09-28-2011, 07:41 PM

Thank you - I stand corrected. All these years I thought it was New Jersey, but Maryland is kind of Baja New Jersey.

So, it's Christie, the Tony Soprano look alike from New Jersey. He's a fat, loud mouth East coast establishment politition. He's a non-starter in the primary.

Crane

Chefguy

09-28-2011, 07:54 PM

Well, it's a cinch that he isn't actually going to "run" for much of anything. Other than a cheeseburger.

Frank

09-28-2011, 07:55 PM

... Maryland is kind of Baja New Jersey.
:dubious:

Maryland doesn't even touch New Jersey.

Crane

09-28-2011, 07:58 PM

I wouldn't either!

Crane

gonzomax

09-29-2011, 09:11 PM

Obama facing Snow White and the 7 dwarfs. They got plenty of nothing.

AbloyProtec

09-30-2011, 06:06 AM

Obama facing Snow White and the 7 dwarfs. They got plenty of nothing.

I'll play, which one is Snow White?

Crane

09-30-2011, 07:25 AM

Something like:

The Prince; Romney

Snow White; Palin

Witch; Bachmann

Dopey; Perry
Doc; Paul
Grumpy; Gingrich
Bashful; Huntsman
Happy; Johnson
Sneezy;
Sleepy;

Gyrate

09-30-2011, 07:42 AM

Cain seems to be getting a bit of a bump at the moment for some reason. I wouldn't be surprised to see him in serious consideration for Veephood after all, unless Bachmann gets the nomination. I can't see the GOP running a woman/minority ticket, but there's still a long way to go.

I've been reading the descriptions of the candidates over at fivethirtyeight (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates) and Johnson intrigues me. Libertarian in a socially moderate, economically conservative way. Is there a Paul-esque streak of crazy that's not being reported there?

AbloyProtec

09-30-2011, 07:47 AM

Cain seems to be getting a bit of a bump at the moment for some reason.

Winning Florida Straw Poll plus strong placing in Fox News, Gallup, and Zogby polls.

Really Not All That Bright

09-30-2011, 08:44 AM

Gyrate

09-30-2011, 09:01 AM

I can't see the GOP running a woman/minority ticket, but there's still a long way to go. On further consideration this would be an extremely crafty move by the Republicans. Just imagine the Democratic base reaction to it. Heads exploding all over the place. "But...but...they've got a black guy AND a woman! But they're Republicans! And Chewbacca lives on Endor! AAAAGH!" <splut>

It'd be a disaster for the country but since when has that stopped anyone?

AbloyProtec

09-30-2011, 09:03 AM

That and Perry channeling George W. Bush at the last couple of debates.

Fun fact: the Florida P5 straw poll winner has taken the Republican nomination every year since 1979. Cain might actually be the guy!

Unfortunately, it only occurred during the Reagan, Bush Sr., and Dole cycles. I guess 3/5 isn't THAT bad.

Chronos

09-30-2011, 10:58 AM

Winning Florida Straw Poll plus strong placing in Fox News, Gallup, and Zogby polls. That's not the reason for the bump; that is the bump.

AbloyProtec

09-30-2011, 11:04 AM

That's not the reason for the bump; that is the bump.

Oh ok, thanks for the clarification sir.

Chronos

09-30-2011, 03:14 PM

AbloyProtec

10-04-2011, 09:35 AM

Chris Christie has a press conference scheduled for this afternoon. Meg Whitman says he isn't running. Maybe this is the formal announcement?

Bayard

10-04-2011, 10:21 AM

The New York Times is reporting Christie has re-decided not to run:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/christie-wont-run-for-president-advisers-say/?hp

BobLibDem

10-04-2011, 10:34 AM

The New York Times is reporting Christie has re-decided not to run:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/christie-wont-run-for-president-advisers-say/?hp

I guess they can lay off on the restoration of the Taft bathtub for now.

The wind of my soul

10-04-2011, 10:59 AM

To clarify a bit more, a reason for a bump might be something like a particularly good debate performance, a positive interview, a successful ad campaign, an endorsement from someone influential, a direct competitor dropping out of the race or saying something to turn voters against them, something like that. You can't even just say "The people are waking up to the fact that he's the best candidate", because then you have to explain why they're waking up now when they weren't before.

Well I would think that his winning the Florida Straw Poll happened because he was doing a lot of campaigning down in Florida. (Not that I've been following his campaign too closely, but usually straw poll wins are accompanied by heavy campaigning in that state.) Then when he wins one straw poll, the news media pays more attention to him, people learn about him and consider him more electable than they had previously, and pledge their allegiance to him in the other news polls cited.

AbloyProtec

10-04-2011, 11:07 AM

Chronos,

Cain's continues to climb in the polls (now tied for 2nd w/ Perry). When do you project this bump will end?

Chronos

10-04-2011, 11:20 AM

What makes you think I'm making any projections at all about it?

AbloyProtec

10-04-2011, 11:24 AM

What makes you think I'm making any projections at all about it?

Thus my question.

Really Not All That Bright

10-04-2011, 11:43 AM

Chronos,

Cain's continues to climb in the polls (now tied for 2nd w/ Perry). When do you project this bump will end?
South Carolina.

Merijeek

10-04-2011, 12:44 PM

South Carolina.

Why? Has Cain got any rumored black children?

-Joe

jayjay

10-04-2011, 03:12 PM

Finagle

10-04-2011, 03:25 PM

No stomach for presidential politics...

I see what you did there.

Merijeek

10-04-2011, 03:42 PM

I see what you did there.

Pretty sure that Fox News really wanted him to at first, but then they got a quote on replacing all their camera lenses and changed their mind.

-Joe

Chefguy

10-05-2011, 10:40 AM

I see what you did there.

It would have been fun to have Bobby Baccalieri as President, methinks.

Steve MB

10-05-2011, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE=Merijeek;14323036]Why? Has Cain got any rumored black children?

There's also the fact that his name is to close to McCain....

AbloyProtec

10-05-2011, 05:23 PM

Fox News reports that Sarah Palin will not be running.

BrainGlutton

10-05-2011, 06:24 PM

Fox News reports that Sarah Palin will not be running.

So who does that leave in the Tea Party Thunderdome -- Bachmann, Perry, who else?

AbloyProtec

10-05-2011, 06:26 PM

So who does that leave in the Tea Party Thunderdome -- Bachmann, Perry, who else?

Herman Cain - he's only spoken at dozens and dozens of Tea Party events and only won dozens of their straw polls.

jsgoddess

10-05-2011, 06:35 PM

So who does that leave in the Tea Party Thunderdome -- Bachmann, Perry, who else?

There's Cain, but he's destined to follow Bachmann's path.

I think if Palin ran, she would have guaranteed Mitt the nomination. I don't know if Perry can come back, but I don't see the others with any chance at all.

Really Not All That Bright

10-05-2011, 09:06 PM

Fox News reports that Sarah Palin will not be running.
... for the sixth time.

AbloyProtec

10-06-2011, 06:08 AM

... for the sixth time.

I'm having trouble finding the other 5 times, can you provide links or sources?

tnetennba

10-06-2011, 06:13 AM

So did she ever resume her bus tour?

BobLibDem

10-06-2011, 06:34 AM

So did she ever resume her bus tour?

The purpose of the bus tour was to crap on Romney's announcement that he was running. Mission accomplished.

tnetennba

10-06-2011, 06:49 AM

She flung poo at Christie while making her announcement. Keep it classy, lady. I also like how she says you don't have to be in office to make a difference. What difference is she making?

BobLibDem

10-06-2011, 07:22 AM

She probably is pissed at Steve Jobs to have the audacity to die on her news day.

RTFirefly

10-06-2011, 07:45 AM

I've been looking over my early posts in this thread, and let's just say I'm less than impressed with my ability as a prognosticator.

Take my first post in the thread:
My WAG is that the nomination will go to whichever of the Establishment empty suits (Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Thune) can do the best job of convincing the wingnuts that he's one of them.

Palin will run (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/sarah-palin-makes-chief-of-sta.html), if only to keep her name in play so she can make more money off her fan club. But she won't win the nomination.

Gingrich has made a career out of considering throwing his hat into the Presidential ring. He won't actually DO it, because his base (which is the same base as McCain used to have - the DC press/pundit corps) would have to admit that nobody gives a shit about this guy out in the real world.

Huckabee's in a lousy position this time - not establishment enough to please the GOP's corporatist base, but not crazy enough for the Teahadists. He'll run, he may win a number of primaries, but he's not winning the nomination.

Huntsman's all about 2016.

Giuliani won't run if he's got half a brain - what makes him think he could do better this time than last?

What makes Santorum think he can do better nationally than he did in his own state last time?

Haley Barbour: even the GOP's got the smarts not to nominate Boss Hogg.

George Pataki: he's got nothing else to do with himself these days, so he might as well run for President. Damned if I know who's going to vote for him.If I turn out to be right in my first prediction, it will be only vacuously so: Daniels and Thune didn't run, and essentially nobody was interested in supporting T-Paw. So even though Romney hasn't gained any meaningful support from the wingnut contingent, I suppose one could say that he still outdrew the other three. Gotta score this as a miss.

Palin will run - miss.

Gingrich won't - miss.

Huckabee will run - miss.

Huntsman's all about 2016 - well sure, but everybody knew that.

Giuliani, Santorum, Pataki - hits, but zero points. Too easy.

Barbour - hit. Not sure why anyone gave him a chance, but pundits were taking his chances seriously, so I'll give myself a point for this one.

Still, that's 1-for-5, just from this post. And that was just the beginning. :)

Marley23

10-06-2011, 07:50 AM

Gingrich won't - miss.
This one's a forgivable mistake, I think. Gingrich has run a half-assed campaign, and running was a bad decision because it killed his PAC, so after he's done losing, he won't have much to go back to. Similar candidates like Trump did a better job assessing reality and realizing they had no chance to win and could only lose by actually running, so they didn't.

Merijeek

10-06-2011, 08:40 AM

Herman Cain - he's only spoken at dozens and dozens of Tea Party events and only won dozens of their straw polls.

Let's bet.

$100 says that Cain will not be the GOP nominee. You want to take that action? You seem to be a pretty fanatical devotee to him, even though the GOP primaries will never allow a "boy" like him through the process.

You in or out?

-Joe

AbloyProtec

10-06-2011, 08:51 AM

Let's bet.

$100 says that Cain will not be the GOP nominee. You want to take that action? You seem to be a pretty fanatical devotee to him, even though the GOP primaries will never allow a "boy" like him through the process.

You in or out?

-Joe

I don't bet, but thank you.

You're the 3rd person to offer that bet to me on this forum.

jayjay

10-06-2011, 09:01 AM

I don't bet, but thank you.

You're the 3rd person to offer that bet to me on this forum.

You can't say we don't know a sure thing when we see it...

Try2B Comprehensive

10-06-2011, 09:08 AM

I don't think Cain can win either. Sooner or later someone is going to run the math on this 999 scheme, and, resistant as the right can be to data &etc, I think enough of them will notice.

Hey Cain, what's your policy priority? "999!"

What problems does that solve? "Nevermind, 999 lowers your taxes!"

What should we do about the rise of China? "999!!"

And so on. I just don't think it can fly.

BobLibDem

10-06-2011, 09:11 AM

Merijeek

10-06-2011, 10:20 AM

I don't bet, but thank you.

You're the 3rd person to offer that bet to me on this forum.

I understand wanting to avoid throwing your money away on a sure thing. Of course, I don't go on and on about how Kucinich is a candidate with actual potential either.

Ron Paul 2012! This time it's for real! Wewt!

-Joe

Chefguy

10-06-2011, 06:21 PM

Fox News reports that Sarah Palin will not be running.

Hardly news to anybody who knows her. My stance from the very beginning was that she would not run. There's no money in it. The press would make frowny faces at her. There's no money in it. It would mean she would have to actually work and make decisions and hard stuff like that. And there's no money in it.

PhillyGuy

10-06-2011, 07:25 PM

I've been looking over my early posts in this thread, and let's just say I'm less than impressed with my ability as a prognosticator.

What an impressively honest post.

I should now make similarly bold predictions. But really I have no idea who will be GOP nominee, other than it looks like Romney or Perry, or who will win in November. I'll confidently say that the election will be about the economy, but that isn't falsifiable.

Try2B Comprehensive

10-06-2011, 09:17 PM

Well I want to point out how much I personally like Herman Cain.

He's the head of Godfather's Pizza you know. Growing up, Godfather's was the place.to.go. If your parents said, 'Hey Kids, where do you want to go out?', it was because they wanted to go out to Godfather's.

It was really great pizza. It improved my quality of life. I have no choice but to thank Herman Cain. There will always be a warm spot in my heart for him.

I hope he doesn't take it the wrong way that I prefer Obama for President. Obama has 4 years' experience at President, and also was a professor of Constitutional Law if I am not entirely mistaken. Herman Cain is a successful entrepreneur, nothing like many of his Republican contemporaries who made their money in worthless pursuits like gaming the real estate derivatives markets or some other such paper-pushing bullshit.

No, Herman Cain made his fortune providing a product people wanted to purchase. People may say, 'Oh Gee Whiz, that's "just" pizza!'. But try saying that to Morton about selling "just" salt. People want it, he sold it and made a proper fortune. Caterpillar made a mint selling equipment. And so on.

I like Herman Cain. I'm still voting for Obama.

AbloyProtec

10-07-2011, 05:53 AM

You can't say we don't know a sure thing when we see it...

This board isn't objective enough to paint a real picture. This board is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Onomatopoeia

10-07-2011, 07:20 AM

This board isn't objective enough to paint a real picture. This board is overwhelmingly Democratic.What does that have to do with opining that Cain won't be the Republican party nominee?

Steve MB

10-07-2011, 08:29 AM

RTFirefly

10-07-2011, 08:40 AM

Hardly news to anybody who knows her. My stance from the very beginning was that she would not run. There's no money in it. The press would make frowny faces at her. There's no money in it. It would mean she would have to actually work and make decisions and hard stuff like that. And there's no money in it.I disagree about the "there's no money in it" part. I hope she's stashing away the money she's already made, because she's already yesterday's news except to a rapidly diminishing group of hardcore followers.

Even a respectable primary showing (say 3rd or 4th overall, and winning a couple of small-state primaries along the way) would have kept the gravy train running for a few more years. But by this time next year, even Fox News will have forgotten about her.

ETA: what really killed it for her was the " she would have to actually work and make decisions and hard stuff like that" part. To say that actual work is not her forte is an understatement.

Chefguy

10-07-2011, 09:03 AM

I disagree about the "there's no money in it" part. I hope she's stashing away the money she's already made, because she's already yesterday's news except to a rapidly diminishing group of hardcore followers.

Even a respectable primary showing (say 3rd or 4th overall, and winning a couple of small-state primaries along the way) would have kept the gravy train running for a few more years. But by this time next year, even Fox News will have forgotten about her.

ETA: what really killed it for her was the " she would have to actually work and make decisions and hard stuff like that" part. To say that actual work is not her forte is an understatement.

Well, you're right: there is, of course, money in politics. But the work-to-cashflow ratio is much more favorable for what she's doing now. Riding around in a bus and saying stupid shit to gullible people is much easier than, say, addressing the trade imbalance.

Frank

10-08-2011, 07:38 PM

Values Voter Summit straw poll:

Paul 37%
Cain 22%
...
Perry 8%
Romney 4%

Organizer Tony Perkins suggests it was fixed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117696-503544.html):
In a press conference following the announcement of the straw poll results at the annual Washington gathering of social conservatives, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins all but dismissed the results as irrelevant, citing 600 people who registered Saturday morning and, he said, "left after Ron Paul spoke."

A total of 1,983 ballots were cast. "You do the math," Perkins said.

Chronos

10-08-2011, 08:07 PM

That doesn't necessarily sound like a "fix", to me, just a bunch of folks who are monomaniacally fanatical about Paul. Nothing that says they can't be honest about their monomania, though.

The wind of my soul

10-08-2011, 08:37 PM

Values Voter Summit straw poll:

Paul 37%
Cain 22%
...
Perry 8%
Romney 4%

Organizer Tony Perkins suggests it was fixed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117696-503544.html):

As someone who attended this summit and voted for Ron Paul, I have a few things to say about this.

If you want to talk about fixing a vote, the whole premise of the Values Voters Conference is set up to be fixed. The "Values" in the name stands for Evangelical Christian values. The speeches delivered were not about stabilizing the economy and balancing the budget, they were about preserving the sanctity of marriage and dismantling Planned Parenthood.

Out of all the presidential candidates who are routinely invited to primary debates, every single one was invited to speak at this event, with the exception of Jon Huntsman. Rick Santorum typically polls only a single percentage above Huntsman, but at this summit he polled 16 percentage points above Huntsman.

At the voting station, we were given the choice to choose from many, many politicians for vice president, including some whose name I did not recognize. Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who is pro-choice and in favor of legalizing marijuana, was not even listed as an option, despite participating in two primary debates and sometimes polling in the same range as Santorum and Huntsman.

This summit was clearly intended for a Christian audience, and they did not receive the outcome that they wanted. To say that this is fixed because their ploy to attract only religious conservatives did not work strikes me as petty and insulting.

AbloyProtec

10-09-2011, 04:35 PM

As someone who attended this summit and voted for Ron Paul, I have a few things to say about this.

Was there really a mass exodus after Paul spoke?

jayjay

10-09-2011, 05:13 PM

To say that this is fixed because their ploy to attract only religious conservatives did not work strikes me as petty and insulting.

Not that I have much other common cause with the Paulites, but pretty much everything that Tony Perkins says strikes me as petty and insulting.

gonzomax

10-09-2011, 06:42 PM

Perry can not afford another bad debate showing. I am sure they are coaching the shit out of his brain.
Romney is the front runner, even though most of the party is lukewarm to negative on him.
The rest are jokes. Cain is far outside. The 999 is crazy .
Paul will have a small but loyal following forever, but the keyword is small.
Even Palin realized she had nowhere to go. She will fade away pretty soon.
Bachmann is past her use by date. The more people listen too her, the worse she does.
The problem is, will the Libertarians of Paul support Romney. Will the goofballs of 999 support Romney. Will the southwest anti government types like Bachmann go along with Romney.
Can he get the party in back of him with the Liberal, Mormon, flipflopper east coast billionaire vibe clanging away?

AbloyProtec

10-09-2011, 07:20 PM

The rest are jokes. Cain is far outside. The 999 is crazy .

Your denial is an excellent motivator. Far outside? Lol.

I cannot wait to see how you explain Cain's continuing "surge" after Tuesday's debate. In fact, I look forward to it just as much as the debate itself.

Gonzo, still planning on voting for Cain? Can I make a contribution in your name, buddy?

E-Sabbath

10-09-2011, 08:48 PM

I actually think Ron Paul has a nonzero chance this year, as some sort of compromise candidate. He's Not Romney and he's Not Herman Cain.

The wind of my soul

10-09-2011, 08:56 PM

Was there really a mass exodus after Paul spoke?

Yes.

Crane

10-13-2011, 11:12 AM

Simplicio

10-13-2011, 11:23 AM

And now Cain!

Do these poll changes reflect different constituencies or the same people wavering from candidate to candidate. It was obvious that Perry would self destruct before Iowa, but Cain?!

Crane

I think its people just fleeing from protest candidate to protest candidate. They don't want Romney, so they support Trumph, then Bachman, then Perry and now Cain. They don't really care (at first) about the actual candidate, they just want to support the latest "not-Romney". Then as the persons poll numbers rise, the media and voters start paying more attention to the person as an actual candidate, they start looking less attractive, and then they flee to the next person.

Which raises the question, who will be the next "not-Romney" after Cain?

Really Not All That Bright

10-13-2011, 11:30 AM

They'll be recycling them soon. Back to Ron Paul we go.

The wind of my soul

10-13-2011, 11:43 AM

Which raises the question, who will be the next "not-Romney" after Cain?

Gingrich. He recently started polling in the double digits and even pulled ahead of Perry in the latest poll. (Although I think that last part says more about Perry than it does about Gingrich.)

Marley23

10-13-2011, 11:50 AM

Gingrich.
Never happen. Remember why his poll numbers tanked the first time?

The wind of my soul

10-13-2011, 11:55 AM

Never happen. Remember why his poll numbers tanked the first time?

I'm not sure what you're alluding to here. His poll numbers tanked because his campaign staff quit, coupled with his criticizing Paul Ryan's plan. I don't see reason to believe that either of those would happen again. Unless you're referring to something else.

Also, I never said he would stay on top. I just suggested that he may be next in line.

Steve MB

10-13-2011, 12:00 PM

As someone who attended this summit and voted for Ron Paul, I have a few things to say about this.

If you want to talk about fixing a vote, the whole premise of the Values Voters Conference is set up to be fixed. The "Values" in the name stands for Evangelical Christian values. The speeches delivered were not about stabilizing the economy and balancing the budget, they were about preserving the sanctity of marriage and dismantling Planned Parenthood.

Out of all the presidential candidates who are routinely invited to primary debates, every single one was invited to speak at this event, with the exception of Jon Huntsman. Rick Santorum typically polls only a single percentage above Huntsman, but at this summit he polled 16 percentage points above Huntsman.

At the voting station, we were given the choice to choose from many, many politicians for vice president, including some whose name I did not recognize. Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who is pro-choice and in favor of legalizing marijuana, was not even listed as an option, despite participating in two primary debates and sometimes polling in the same range as Santorum and Huntsman.

This summit was clearly intended for a Christian audience, and they did not receive the outcome that they wanted. To say that this is fixed because their ploy to attract only religious conservatives did not work strikes me as petty and insulting.

As noted on this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=627268), the GOP likes to trot out "small government" propaganda while carrying water for the "values voters" big-government faction. It's hardly surprising that actual small-government believers would resent being treated as suckers, and would respond by making a mockery of their little game.

Crane

10-20-2011, 07:06 PM

As I watched the Republican 'debate', all I could do was wonder - 'is this the best America has to offer for the office of President'. If this clown show represents the cream of the crop then the country is in real trouble. The Republicans should clean off the slate and offer us some real candidates.

Crane

Da Mikster

10-20-2011, 07:28 PM

As I watched the Republican 'debate', all I could do was wonder - 'is this the best America has to offer for the office of President'.

No, but just the way the primaries are rigged in favor of the hardcore partisan and lunatic fringe + unlimited monies for attack ads, means not many folks who could/would do a good job are actually dumb enough (or have big enough egos) to WANT it.

RTFirefly

10-21-2011, 09:30 AM

Well, you're right: there is, of course, money in politics. But the work-to-cashflow ratio is much more favorable for what she's doing now. Riding around in a bus and saying stupid shit to gullible people is much easier than, say, addressing the trade imbalance.My point is that if she doesn't do the work of running for office, people will lose interest in her, and her cash flow will dry up. The work-to-cashflow ratio may work for her now, but by this time next year, she may have next to no cashflow to speak of.

BrainGlutton

10-21-2011, 10:04 AM

Really Not All That Bright

10-21-2011, 10:07 AM

I'm pretty certain there's no other developed country where evolution deniers can be plausible candidates for the highest elected offices.

Most countries have much bigger problems with institutional corruption and such than us, but it's hard to beat America's politicians for pure stupid.

jsgoddess

10-21-2011, 11:07 AM

Most countries have much bigger problems with institutional corruption and such than us, but it's hard to beat America's politicians for pure stupid.

We're number one! We're number one!

pseudotriton ruber ruber

10-21-2011, 11:15 AM

developed country where evolution deniers can be plausible candidates for the highest elected offices.

It's actually much worse than you are saying: this merely impliles that Americans are unusually tolerant, genial, generous people. In fact, what we are is small-minded imbeciles, or at least that's the wagon that Republicans have hitched themselves to: to be a Republican nomnee for President in this time means you MUST affirmatively assert that you deny evolution. That is SOME serious lack of integrity, especially since (I hope) every Republican candidate is smart enough to grasp the basics of evolution, and secretly accept it in his heart.

Well, maybe not Palin.

Nor Bachmann.

uh, not Herman, neither.

Okay, I hope SOME Pubbies are that smart.