Romney or Gingrich?

[Kozmik]

Simple question. Difficult answer.

If the South Carolina primary tomorrow does not settle it then perhaps the debates on Tuesday and Thursday will.

[BrainGlutton]

Or if not, then an exorcism should.

[Simplicio]

What question your asking isn't exactly super-clear. You mean: who will win the GOP nomination?

Romney. Newt would be an awful candidate. I can't believe the GOP would let him win. Even if he wins in S. Carolina, every Republican functionary within a million miles of a TV camera will spend all of February unloading on him.

[Richard Parker]

There's no way Gingrich will win it unless Europe collapses in the next 3 months.

Parties sometime nominate the less electable candidate. But when the only thing holding the Party together is Obama hatred, it just seems really unlikely that they'll pick the candidate that is not just less likely to win than Romney, but indeed least (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html)likely to win.

Electability will win the day for Romney.

[contradancer]

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

indeed least (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html)likely to win.



The weird thing about that link is it shows Obama tied, roughly, or beating soundly each individual opponent but getting his hat handed to him by a generic Republican.

[Gagundathar]

Yeah, if only the GOP could find Mr. Generic, the presidency would be theirs.

[howye]

Yeah, if only the GOP could find Mr. Generic, the presidency would be theirs.

They have, yet Mitt seems to not poll very well.

[Damuri Ajashi]

nm

[Jas09]

The weird thing about that link is it shows Obama tied, roughly, or beating soundly each individual opponent but getting his hat handed to him by a generic Republican.Both Romney v. Obama and Obama v. Generic GOP are likely within the MOE. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most voters equate "Romney" with "Generic GOP" - he's pretty much the ceiling in this field wrt electability. The question is whether GOP voters will go with that or take a chance on the guys they actually like.

[Kozmik]

Even if he wins in S. Carolina, every Republican functionary within a million miles of a TV camera will spend all of February unloading on him.Even if he wins in Florida?

Right now, Gingrich has the advantage of momentum. This momentum won't last, however. Tonight on NBC is a Republican debate, then on Thursday there is another Republican debate on CNN, then, at the end of the month, is the Florida primary. So there is momentum until the end of the month. Then what? Then, there are a few debates in February and March, and, of course, Super Tuesday. Then, the Republican National Convention in August. Then, the Democratic National Convention in September. Then, finally, Election Day on November 6.


Can Gingrich use the momentum to win the Florida primary?

[dorsk188]

I really can't see Gingrich keeping up his momentum throughout all of February. Romney will clean up in most of the caucuses during that period with his infrastructure and inherent advantages in those states and there are few scheduled debates (the only place Newt has an advantage). Then comes Super-Tuesday where money will buy ads. Gingrich has friends with deep pockets, but his superpac can only effectively attack Romney. I don't know if you can win a nomination on bile alone.

People are talking seriously about the possibility of asking Romney to step aside in favor of an establishment candidate like Jeb Bush that the GOP voters won't reject like a type-mismatched baboon lung.

Since the beginning, there's been two basic theories for how this campaign will end: Romney is inevitable, and Romney is unacceptable. It seems more and more like, somehow, they're both right.

[IntelliQ]

Newt won another debate last night, handily.

He made the rest of them, especially Romney and Santorum sound like pull string dolls vomiting up the same recorded phrases over and over.

I think what turns a lot of people off about political candidates is they are boring and repetitive. "I know what it takes to lead",...."I will make the tough decisions",......."I know how to get America working again". Please. Romney and Santorum are dullards.
(This applies to democrats too in general, and believe it's a big reason Obama did well last election - he offers detailed responses)

If Newt continues on this path, and comes off mild mannered instead of pissed off, then he's got the nomination (barring any real past bombshell coming to light that voters can't let slide).

I'm not saying he would be or wouldnt be a decent president and putting his personal stuff aside, have you ever heard a candidate similar to Newt who has a full command of every issue and able to detail such concise responses?

[BrainGlutton]

If Newt continues on this path, and comes off mild mannered instead of pissed off, then he's got the nomination (barring any real past bombshell coming to light that voters can't let slide).

I'm pretty sure that happened already. Might not lose him the nomination, will lose him the election.

[Jas09]

Newt won another debate last night, handily. Really? I thought Newt did rather poorly last night. Romney finally hit him and sort of knocked him back. Without the crowd frenzy he comes off as rather timid and meek.

I'm not sure it's enough, but you can bet the lobbying charge will be blanketing FL between now and the primary, as well as all the ethics-related stuff and maybe some more seamy third-party allegations re: infidelity and sick-wife-leaving.

[dorsk188]

Romney: I only pay 15% in taxes!

Gingrich: That's so horrible I want everyone to pay the same rate.

Romney: Actually, under your plan, I would pay nothing at all... nothing at all... nothing at all...

That debate was a real clunker, as far as I can tell. It's a shame Newt can't just attack at this massively vulnerable underbelly because his superpac runs on billionaires.

[Oakminster]

People are talking seriously about the possibility of asking Romney to step aside in favor of an establishment candidate like Jeb Bush that the GOP voters won't reject like a type-mismatched baboon lung.



I have a better chance of beating Obama than anyone named Bush. His brother pretty much ruined the family name at the national level for the foreseeable future.

[PrettyVacant]

When do the sane, rational grown ups declare?

[Gyrate]

When do the sane, rational grown ups declare?
1956.

[BrainGlutton]

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority? :confused:

[IntelliQ]

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority? :confused:

Majority of what? Polls show him doing well.

His overly self confident (arrogance) isnt a good attribute, but that hasnt stopped him from finagling meaningful compromises which were a benefit to the country. I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.

[Jas09]

Majority of what? Polls show him doing well.Majority of the country. As in, non-GOP-primary voters. Overall he's at something like -28 (http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-gingrich) approve/disapprove. In head-to-head matchups he loses by 10 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html) or more to Obama. Women, by and large, hate him. Moderates hate him. Only the GOP primary voting population seems to love him right now.

All of this could change, but there is a reason the GOP establishment is melting down over his potential nomination.

[Simplicio]

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority? :confused:

I wonder about this to. I don't think I've ever seen a attack ad bring up electibility. I guess it just seems too wonky and bloodless to bring up someones poll numbers in a TV spot. OTOH, ts probably Romney's best argument if he could figure out a way to make it more well known to the GOP primary electorate.

(oddly in the bits of the debates I've caught, its Newt attacking Romney's electibility by saying he's only won one election that seemed most prominant).

[BrainGlutton]

His overly self confident (arrogance) isnt a good attribute, but that hasnt stopped him from finagling meaningful compromises which were a benefit to the country.

Going by his record as Speaker, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Speaker_of_the_House) he never did anything but obstruct compromises which were a benefit to the country; while speeding all compromises not beneficial, like the Taxpayer Relief Act. (And, hey, what ever happened to that term-limits thing?!)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I wonder about this to. I don't think I've ever seen a attack ad bring up electibility. I guess it just seems too wonky and bloodless to bring up someones poll numbers in a TV spot. OTOH, ts probably Romney's best argument if he could figure out a way to make it more well known to the GOP primary electorate.

(oddly in the bits of the debates I've caught, its Newt attacking Romney's electibility by saying he's only won one election that seemed most prominant).
The problem with bringing up electability in an attack ad is that calling your opponent "too conservative to be elected" will turn off conservatives. That's why they say things like "I can work with both sides" instead.

[IntelliQ]

Going by his record as Speaker, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Speaker_of_the_House) he never did anything but obstruct compromises which were a benefit to the country; while speeding all compromises not beneficial, like the Taxpayer Relief Act. (And, hey, what ever happened to that term-limits thing?!)

His solutions to illegal immigration seems like a perfect compromise on a huge issue.

Welfare reform? Clinton and the left had different ideas on how to do it but eventually hammered out deals with Newt to get the mostly republican version passed.

That wiki link you provided is full of accomplishments, very impressive to say the least.

As an aside, I see Newt pandering to the far right wing in some ways, like on climate change. If somehow magically overnight the utlra right thought global warming was real and important - New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.

[kaylasdad99]

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority? :confused:Let's hope so.

[kaylasdad99]

I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.
It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

[elucidator]

...New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.

Thanks for the image.

[Bryan Ekers]

Romney: Actually, under your plan, I would pay nothing at all... nothing at all... nothing at all...

Stupid sexy Romney!


Anyway, Newt can get some cheap applause by playing to his audience's dislike of the "liberal" media, i.e. it's not Obama that's wrong with the country, it's reporters who concentrate on questions about my personal life. Am I right? C'mon, give it up!

[Really Not All That Bright]

If somehow magically overnight the utlra right thought global warming was real and important - New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.
Why? Is Calista sick?

[Spoke]

It appears that Gingrich will be the last not-Romney standing. (Ron Paul doesn't count, and Santorum in Iowa was a blip.) Therefore, Gingrich will win the nomination. All or most of the not-Romney voters will hop on his train.

Romney has never had anything but a plurality among Republican voters, and I just don't think he will ever muster a majority.

[CJJ*]

The problem with bringing up electability in an attack ad is that calling your opponent "too conservative to be elected" will turn off conservatives. That's why they say things like "I can work with both sides" instead.
Electability is dicey in a primary because it tacitly concedes the "product" you're trying to sell--conservatism--is something the majority doesn't really want. And no one wants to vote for the best turd-polisher.

[IntelliQ]

It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

The same can be said about Obama and it would be mostly true. He just defecated his 3rd consecutive SOTU speech tailored for 8th graders - yet he's heralded as brilliant by his followers.

No one thinks Biden is anything but a nitwit, he's safe from additional scrutiny.

Pelosi's mildly retarded, Romney doesnt know shit, Paul is a fruitcake, and Santorum has kept to a 15 phrase limit so he doesnt risk tripping on an original thought.

[Simplicio]

Electability is dicey in a primary because it tacitly concedes the "product" you're trying to sell--conservatism--is something the majority doesn't really want. And no one wants to vote for the best turd-polisher.

You can be un-electable for reasons other then being too conservative. For example, if the last time the public was aware of you you were being drummed out of the leadership by your own party under a haze of scandal and by bi-partisan agreement that you were kind of a dick.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd like to see Gingrich debate Bill Clinton.

Clinton: So, you stupid son of a bitch, you think you got the stones to be president? Heck, when I cheated on my wife, she was healthy enough to kick my ass!

[BrainGlutton]

No, really, Newt is so repellent to so many that he couldn't beat Jimmy-Carter-come-out-of-retirement. Carter would win a second term.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Simple question. Difficult answer. For me, it's a simple answer : Romney.

I grew up in Newt's congressional district back when he was Speaker. He came and talked to my high school back in 1991. I have met the man. Not just that day, but afterwards as well. He is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but Newt.... I despise that man, because I have met him and he is as bad a human being as his detractors make him out to be. Probably worse.

[Kolak of Twilo]

For me, it's a simple answer : Romney.

I grew up in Newt's congressional district back when he was Speaker. He came and talked to my high school back in 1991. I have met the man. Not just that day, but afterwards as well. He is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but Newt.... I despise that man, because I have met him and he is as bad a human being as his detractors make him out to be. Probably worse.

I feel you're holding back. How do you really feel about good ol' Newt? Huh?

It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

I hadn't heard it put that way but it sums up my feelings about Gingrich and his supporters very well. Thanks for that.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The same can be said about Obama and it would be mostly true. He just defecated his 3rd consecutive SOTU speech tailored for 8th graders - yet he's heralded as brilliant by his followers.

Its not that Newt says smart sounding things. Its that he says it the way dumb people imagine a smart person might say it.

Granted his SOTU addresses suck ass. I didn't like Bush but every state of the union address I came away thinking that he could connect.

I never thought Obama was brilliant. Smart, well, sure Gingrich got his PhD in European History from Tulane "the Harvard of the South" but Obama got his law degree from Harvard "the Harvard of Cambridge" where he graduated in the top 10% of his law school class. So I think a lot of people just assume he is smart.

But his intellect is not why so many people like him. Its what we THOUGHT he stood for. Its for the vision we THOUGHT he had. Now we are stuck with him and if the Republican candidates weren't all so horrible (thank you tea party) I don't know if people could get excited about him a second time.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Since Obama is in this conversation, I want to give my opinion of our top three presidential hopefulls:

Obama: Quite possibly wasn't really ready for the office, but still worked for his campaign promises. He hasn't fucked anything over too bad, so he will have my vote.

Romney: He wants to run the Executive branch like he was a CEO. If he's elected, not much will happen. Maybe the economy will get better, maybe it won't. He doesn't have any "vision" - so look for the status quo (whether you like it or not)

Gingrich: Power hungry bastard. He could get us in some very deep shit if he gets the office. This is not a guy that will listen to anybody on his staff. He will be smart enough not to do anything that is quite illegal, but that doesn't mean he will make good decisions.

[dorsk188]

[Newt Gingrich] is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

Good sir, you underestimate my capacity to loathe.

[Gyrate]

I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.Does a permanent moon base by the end of his term sound like a workable idea? Seriously, the most expensive project in the history of the world, funded by cutting taxes? Is that what passes for profound insight these days?

[Kolak of Twilo]

Does a permanent moon base by the end of his term sound like a workable idea? Seriously, the most expensive project in the history of the world, funded by cutting taxes? Is that what passes for profound insight these days?
Maybe he is planning to have poor inner city school children build the moon bases after class. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash. They could also be put into service installing giant mirrors to reflect ambient light so it covers entire areas reducing the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping. It sounds like genius. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-ideas-idUSTRE80P06920120126)

[Simplicio]

He literally "promised voters the moon".

[IntelliQ]

Maybe he is planning to have poor inner city school children build the moon bases after class. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash. They could also be put into service installing giant mirrors to reflect ambient light so it covers entire areas reducing the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping. It sounds like genius. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-ideas-idUSTRE80P06920120126)

"the floating mirror (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/david-brooks/david-brooks-says-newt-gingrich-once-proposed-putt/) idea isn’t on this list. Instead, it’s included in Gingrich's recap of a June 1979, NASA-sponsored new concepts symposium in Woods Hole, Mass., "where 30 experts brainstormed a range of pioneering options for NASA worthy of Lewis and Clark."

"Also as a futurist, Gingrich has called some and missed some. In 1984, he saw more clearly than most that computers would touch every aspect of commercial and private life..."


As far as I can tell, this was never a policy initiative.


Back to objectivity and relevance now, I think he has very good ideas, like immigration, drug testing people who get federal aid, entitlement reform, replacing obamacare, replace the EPA, and quite a few solutions for the education system.

Those aren't as fun to talk about though.

[dorsk188]

He literally "promised voters the moon".
I, for one, believe that humanity's future (if it's to have one) is in space. One of the great disappointments of Obama has been the dramatic scaling back of the Constellation Project and the shift away from manned space flight.

Gingrich may be a broken VCR, but blinking 12:00 isn't wrong when it's noon.

[IntelliQ]

I, for one, believe that humanity's future (if it's to have one) is in space. One of the great disappointments of Obama has been the dramatic scaling back of the Constellation Project and the shift away from manned space flight.

Gingrich may be a broken VCR, but blinking 12:00 isn't wrong when it's noon.

Please explain what you mean by broken VCR?

[Gyrate]

Back to objectivity and relevance now, I think he has very good ideas, like ... drug testing people who get federal aidAn excellent idea. Any idea how much money it'll cost to drug test every aid recipient every month including adding all those government employees needed to administer and process the tests? And any idea whether that number will be smaller or larger than the amount of aid currently given to people who would fail the test? [Hint: it's not smaller.]

This is a perfect example of the difference between being a smart person and saying things that sound vaguely smart as long as you don't think about them.

Please explain what you mean by broken VCR?Okay, now I have to ask in all seriousness: how old are you?

[Typo Knig]

Space is expensive. Really expensive. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly expensive it is. I mean, you may think it's a lot of cash to pick up your prescriptions, but that's just peanuts to space ...
(Sorry, Doug!)

Presidents would love to put money into manned space exploration - especially since that money would be spent in vote-rich states like Texas, Florida and California. Problem is every manned space goal more interesting that an occasional trip to low orbit is a budget buster. We're talking Sagans of dollars just for a manned space station. It's more for a moon trip - let alone a semi-permanent station.

[mr. jp]

I am not an American. But Romney seems like a good candidate to me.

From wikipedia:
"His experience at Bain & Company and Bain Capital gave Romney a business-oriented world view – centering on a hate of waste and inefficiency, a love for data and charts and analysis and presentation, and a belief in keeping an open mind and seeking opposing points of view – that he would take with him to the public sector."

That sentence sounds like it's written to state what the best hypothetical president would be like. Someone who not only understands economics, but is good at it.

It has become sort of a critique that he is really rich. But he made most of his wealth himself, by making sensible business decisions. Isn't that exactly what you want in a leader? Someone who understands how to make good economic decisions. As the governor of Massechusets, he eliminated the deficit. He also introduced health care reform, in a way that both benefits the poor and is economically beneficial.

Of course his social policies are bad from a European perspective, but so are those of every republican candidate.

[IntelliQ]

An excellent idea. Any idea how much money it'll cost to drug test every aid recipient every month including adding all those government employees needed to administer and process the tests? And any idea whether that number will be smaller or larger than the amount of aid currently given to people who would fail the test? [Hint: it's not smaller.]

This is a perfect example of the difference between being a smart person and saying things that sound vaguely smart as long as you don't think about them.

Okay, now I have to ask in all seriousness: how old are you?

The phrase "he sounds like a broken record" comes to mind but doesnt seem appropriate here, never heard the broken VCR comment before.

Nevermind, my eyes skipped right over the blinking 12 oclock part. So he's like a broken clock, meh.

[BobLibDem]

I suppose it's easier to knock the metaphor than discuss the facts. It just isn't cost effective to drug test welfare recipients. Even worse, are you seriously going to tell kids they have to starve because mommy failed a drug test? Is this what's known as compassionate conservatism?

[IntelliQ]

I suppose it's easier to knock the metaphor than discuss the facts. It just isn't cost effective to drug test welfare recipients. Even worse, are you seriously going to tell kids they have to starve because mommy failed a drug test? Is this what's known as compassionate conservatism?

I didnt knock anything, I asked what it meant.


Mommy shouldnt be doing drugs with taxpayer money, silly.

[Simplicio]

I, for one, believe that humanity's future (if it's to have one) is in space. One of the great disappointments of Obama has been the dramatic scaling back of the Constellation Project and the shift away from manned space flight.

Gingrich may be a broken VCR, but blinking 12:00 isn't wrong when it's noon.

I think people are more making fun of Gingrich's idea that he can give billions away in tax cuts (he wants to cut Captial Gains to zero, for example) and go to the moon and build a moonbase on a timetable more ambitious then the Apollo program. For reference, the Apollo program was absorbing something like half a percent of GDP a year during its height, which would be like 150 billion dollars in todays money.

Thats what people mean when they say he's a stupid persons idea of what a smart person would sound like. His ideas sound pretty cool when he throws them out there, until you sit back and crunch a few numbers and realize they make little or no sense and he's not really making policy proposals, he's just throwing out whatever whim passes through his head.

[BobLibDem]

Mommy shouldnt be doing drugs with taxpayer money, silly.

So you'd rather see her kids starve so that she can't spend any taxpayer money on drugs?

[IntelliQ]

So you'd rather see her kids starve so that she can't spend any taxpayer money on drugs?


The mother is starving her kids.

Im appalled anyone would support a mother who spends her welfare money on drugs then blame other people for her kids not eating.

[BobLibDem]

Jesus said not to cast pearls unto swine, so I guess I needn't spend more time trying to get through to you.

[IntelliQ]

Jesus said not to cast pearls unto swine, so I guess I needn't spend more time trying to get through to you.

Then you're willing to send me some money so I can get high? PM me for the mailing address. Hell send me March's paycheck in advance while you're at it, I wanna invite some of my friends over so we can all get our party on.

[Algorithm]

The mother is starving her kids.

You know, it is possible to smoke pot (or use other drugs) once a week and still have enough welfare money left over to feed your kids. Such parents aren't harming their children any more than parents who have a few glasses of wine on the weekends, and refusing those families financial support will harm the children more than their parents' occasional drinking or drug use.

[BigT]

The mother is starving her kids.

Im appalled anyone would support a mother who spends her welfare money on drugs then blame other people for her kids not eating.

It doesn't matter that the mother did it. The point is that you are okay with the kids dying in order to punish the mother.

Morality is not about who to blame for evil, but actually trying to stop it. Blaming the mom doesn't change the fact that the mother dies because you decided not funding someone's drug habit was more important than those children's lives.

The guy who allows the world to be blown up because he couldn't bring himself to kill the guy who was doing it is not the moral person, even if he consoles himself that it's the other guy's fault.

[BrainGlutton]

Space is expensive. Really expensive.

We know -- the question is, can space be profitable?

[IntelliQ]

You know, it is possible to smoke pot (or use other drugs) once a week and still have enough welfare money left over to feed your kids. Such parents aren't harming their children any more than parents who have a few glasses of wine on the weekends, and refusing those families financial support will harm the children more than their parents' occasional drinking or drug use.

You are saying the mother absolutely has to do drugs, she has no choice, it's out of her control. No matter what she just can't control herself. It's beyond her ability to choose her kids before doing drugs.

Is that a person who is rational enough to care for children?

[Jas09]

You are saying the mother absolutely has to do drugs, she has no choice, it's out of her control. No matter what she just can't control herself. It's beyond her ability to choose her kids before doing drugs.

Is that a person who is rational enough to care for children?So your proposal is that when she fails the drug test we take her kids away or just let them go hungry? If we take them away, where do we put them? How much does that cost?

[IntelliQ]

So your proposal is that when she fails the drug test we take her kids away or just let them go hungry? If we take them away, where do we put them? How much does that cost?

People here are painting the picture of a drug addict. Someone who cant control their own behavior and puts illegal substances above their own children eating is either nuts or an addict.

Anyway, no point going on an on about this, I see where you people stand. It's sad too, because I see there is no chance in hell of ever getting the country on sound economic footing (or fixing cultural decay with inner cities crime, etc.) when crap like this is defended.

The more complex issues dont stand a chance if we can't even agree on the easy stuff.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's only "easy stuff" to you because you're dodging the hard part: what happens to the kids if you take away welfare payments or put them in foster care. You might as well say that fixing the debt problem is easy stuff, because all you have to do is stop spending money on things.

[C3]

So, you've got Option 1: Spend a bunch of money providing food stamps and people are fed vs. Option 2: Spend even more money on drug testing than you would on the benefits and people don't get fed.

And IntelliQ thinks Option 2 is more fiscally responsible?

[IntelliQ]

It's only "easy stuff" to you because you're dodging the hard part: what happens to the kids if you take away welfare payments or put them in foster care. You might as well say that fixing the debt problem is easy stuff, because all you have to do is stop spending money on things.

Right now, drug addicts who starve their kids get their kids taken away.

Non-drug addicts would have nothing to worry about since they will not put drugs ahead of their children.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What about the people who fall somewhere between the two groups (ie., the vast majority)?

[IntelliQ]

What about the people who fall somewhere between the two groups (ie., the vast majority)?

I'd be willing to let pot slide. It's inexpensive and actually less dangerous than liquor. (Im one of those wacky conservatives who support legalizing it, at least in test cases first.)

Those who are not addicted but still abuse the system, only do it because they can- it's on whim and for kicks. That's just an obvious point I shouldnt have to make.
Given the ultimatum they will choose not to do drugs, and this my friends I know. I personally know women who smoked crack by trading their LINK cards for cash to buy it. Wreckless idiotic women who screwed up because they could get away with it and nothing more. I heard with my own two ears these woman talk about this very issue about a year ago, and their view is "aww shit, well that'll suck, guess I wont be partyin' anymore if they pass this shit".

I lived in NW Indiana bordering the infamous town of Gary. I've seen this stuff my whole life so I do know the majority of non-addicts party on the taxpayer dime simply because they can - and it's actually feeding into the potential to become addicts.

Addicts are screwed anyway, their kids get taken by the state.

Anyway the thread has become too narrow in scope now, my apologies.

Umm as far as Romney or Gingrich, ......doesnt seem like a great choice either way to me. I do like listening to Newt though, at least when he speaks I dont feel like Im listening to a pull string doll.

[Steve MB]

This is a perfect example of the difference between being a smart person and saying things that sound vaguely smart as long as you don't think about them.
Are you suggesting that the diploma the Wizard gave Newt is fake, or something?

[BrainGlutton]

What about the people who fall somewhere between the two groups (ie., the vast majority)?

Are you suggesting the majority of Americans are non-addicted casual drug users? If that were the case, I doubt that pot-decrim ballot measure would have failed in California, of all places.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The vast majority of welfare recipients who use drugs.

[punch line loser]

I wouldn't vote for either of them, but Romney is the more sensible choice to me. Most of my issues with Gingrich have already been brought up in this thread. I will say that mandatory drug testing for financial aid eligibility will do nothing but limit access to education even further at a cost to the system, which doesn't help anybody.

Besides, what kind of blowhard claims you can predict Obama's actions according to his "Kenyan, anti-colonial behaviors?" How much more provincial can you get?

[Damuri Ajashi]

I am not an American. But Romney seems like a good candidate to me. ...Of course his social policies are bad from a European perspective, but so are those of every republican candidate.

It would seem that you would peg any successful businessman as a good Presidential candidate. Do you think Silvio Berlusconi was a good Italian leader?

Romney isn't exactyl a bootstrap millionaire. Hes bright and did more with what life gave him than others who started with teh same advantages but life started him off with a LOT of advantages.

Mommy shouldnt be doing drugs with taxpayer money, silly.

And you want to drug test all the mommies to make sure she isn't doing drugs? And then what? Take away the money or take away the kids?

Remember after welfare reform, mommy can only get 5 years worth of discretionary income from welfare. Unless the local drug dealer takes foodstamps and WIC checks, mommy can only use the money the fed gives her for specific things after 5 years and frankly the payments during those 5 years are not exactly enough to support a crack habit.

The mother Im appalled anyone would support a mother who spends her welfare money on drugs then blame other people for her kids not eating.

I think people are supporting the kids not the mom. If the mom is neglecting or abusing the kids, thats one thing (but social workers are already supposed to look out for that sort of thign (and frankly you don't need to eb adrug addict to be a horrible parent)).

You are saying the mother absolutely has to do drugs, she has no choice, it's out of her control. No matter what she just can't control herself. It's beyond her ability to choose her kids before doing drugs?

No, I thought you were the one making that claim. That we must take away the money because they WILL spend it on drugs.

People here are painting the picture of a drug addict. Someone who cant control their own behavior and puts illegal substances above their own children eating is either nuts or an addict.

Once again it seem that you are the one doing that. I don't think that you have a lot of mothers on crack. here's why. Welfare doesn't pay enough to support a crack habit so they steal and kite checks and they end up in jail and their kids get taken away. The system has other ways of detcting drug abuse.

You say you don't have a problem with light recreational drug use and yet that is the only type of drug abuse that will be picked up by drug testing all welfare recipients because any of the3 hard core users get picked up in other ways.

Anyway, no point going on an on about this, I see where you people stand. It's sad too, because I see there is no chance in hell of ever getting the country on sound economic footing (or fixing cultural decay with inner cities crime, etc.) when crap like this is defended.

You think urban decay is the result of everyone being addicted to drugs? You do realize that urban decay existed before crack and continues to exist after crack use has dropped signifiantly, perhaps tehre are other causes for urban decay than welfare queens doing crack with their baby's money.

The more complex issues dont stand a chance if we can't even agree on the easy stuff.

It might help is you didn't live in a world that only exists in the minds of conservatives. First we should agree on what the reality is.

The vast majority of welfare recipients who use drugs.

cite.

[mr. jp]

It would seem that you would peg any successful businessman as a good Presidential candidate. Do you think Silvio Berlusconi was a good Italian leader?


No, obviously. You could do that with any trait you are looking at. If you mention a trait, I can find a leader who has that trait, and was a bad leader. Doesn't mean that the trait itself is not good.

In Berslusconi's case the major problem is that he is corrupt. He was most probably also corrupt in his business life. There is no sign that Romney is.


Romney isn't exactyl a bootstrap millionaire. Hes bright and did more with what life gave him than others who started with teh same advantages but life started him off with a LOT of advantages.


Yes, sure. What I'm arguing for is not exactly that what he did was impressive. It was more that he showed skill at exactly the thing that would be useful for a leader.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Here's a question: Which one do y'all think Obama's campaign people want to win the Republican nomination?

Conventional wisdom is that Romney is the bigger threat because he skews more moderate than most of the Republican candidate field. However, as much as I loathe the man, Gingrich is very good in debates. He knows how to turn things completely on their head, as he did in South Carolina when asked about his ex-wife's interview. Would Obama be able to parry Gingrich's "sound bite" style?

[Jas09]

There is zero doubt in my mind that Obama's people pray nightly to run against Newt Gingrich. The man is radioactive. Romney is a significantly better candidate and two debates, even if they are drubbings, is not enough to compensate.

Just look at Gingrich's poll numbers and tell me which one you would rather face.

[Enlightening Meditation]

Romney or Gingrich

Between the two choices, I would prefer Romney as President of the USA.

Between the two choices, I would prefer Gingrich as the GOP nominee for the entertainment of the spectacle.

Between the two choices, I think Romney is more likely to be nominee. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is sitting below them in the polls mostly dodging attacks for now, so I can't rule him out.

[The_Raven]

Hmmm....

Gingrich has a Second Life avatar.

Romney is a Second Life Avatar.

Gingrich is the Scarecrow.

Romney is the Tin Man.

Romney has the usual cast of characters (Rove, et al.) in his corner.

Gingrich's crew - other than Sheldon Adelson, I honestly don't know.

Romney is a reasonably competent, proven administrator.

Gingrich is a bomb thrower, and I have no confidence in his leadership ability, or even his stability.

[Typo Knig]

We know -- the question is, can space be profitable?

Doubtful. What item is worth transportation costs above $1,000/pound? That we can't get on Earth easier and cheaper.

[BrainGlutton]

“Weird” is the word I hear most from Republicans who have worked with him. Scott Klug, a former Republican House member from Wisconsin, who hasn’t endorsed anyone yet, says “Newt has ten ideas a day – two of them are good, six are weird and two are very weird.”

Robert Reich in Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/dont_wish_for_a_newt_nomination/)

So, he'd make a great Doper. But is that really what we want for President?! :eek:

[BrainGlutton]

Doubtful. What item is worth transportation costs above $1,000/pound? That we can't get on Earth easier and cheaper.

Well, Moon rocks on the souvenir market. But only in the short run. Eventually they'll lose their novelty.

[Miller]

I lived in NW Indiana bordering the infamous town of Gary. I've seen this stuff my whole life so I do know the majority of non-addicts party on the taxpayer dime simply because they can - and it's actually feeding into the potential to become addicts.

"I'm from near that one town!" has got to be the least convincing credential I've ever seen proffered to support a public policy opinion.

[Gyrate]

I think everyone can get on board the idea "I don't want my tax dollars funding drug use". Where we diverge is when it becomes "I don't want my tax dollars funding drug use and I'm willing to pay ten times more than we do now and cause significantly increased misery, especially to those whose drug use is minor, to prevent it." The merits of the plan are far outweighed by the demerits. That's why it's a dumb idea. It's right up there with the "We should have nuked Tehran in 1979" school of thought.

[Damuri Ajashi]

No, obviously. You could do that with any trait you are looking at. If you mention a trait, I can find a leader who has that trait, and was a bad leader. Doesn't mean that the trait itself is not good.

In Berslusconi's case the major problem is that he is corrupt. He was most probably also corrupt in his business life. There is no sign that Romney is.

Yes, sure. What I'm arguing for is not exactly that what he did was impressive. It was more that he showed skill at exactly the thing that would be useful for a leader.

But you are identifying a single trait and saying, gee that would make him a good president. Is Romney competent? Sure, but what makes him acceptable to the electorate is that he pretty much lines up on the Center Right with Obama on a lot of issues from TARP to stimulus to Obamacare/Romneycare to saving the auto industry to a whole bunch of social issues.

Doubtful. What item is worth transportation costs above $1,000/pound? That we can't get on Earth easier and cheaper.

Well, the $1000/pound cost is based on the very expensive space shuttle program is it not? If we found a gold mine on the moon, I suspect the cost of buildinga moon mining base and shooting capsules full of gold back to the earth would cost less than $1000/pound.

Also unobtainium is worth $20,000,000 per kilogram. (which apparently would make it uneconomic to mine in a distant galaxy un less you had stargates)

[kaylasdad99]

Mommy shouldnt be doing drugs with taxpayer money, silly.Granted. That don't put food in the kids' bellies, though.

[Frank]

Doubtful. What item is worth transportation costs above $1,000/pound? That we can't get on Earth easier and cheaper.
There are vast quantities of metals available in space. Nor do I see any reason why space travel won't become easier and cheaper as time goes on. It's gonna be us, or it's gonna be Russia, or China, or the EU.

Somebody's gonna grab a bucket and head out to where it's raining soup.

[kaylasdad99]

Well, the $1000/pound cost is based on the very expensive space shuttle program is it not? If we found a gold mine on the moon, I suspect the cost of buildinga moon mining base and shooting capsules full of gold back to the earth would cost less than $1000/pound.
So. . . whoever we turn out to be claim jumping, are we to expect them to greet us as liberators?

[Irishman]

When do the sane, rational grown ups declare?

This is American politics, those qualifications keep them out.

Anyway, Newt can get some cheap applause by playing to his audience's dislike of the "liberal" media, i.e. it's not Obama that's wrong with the country, it's reporters who concentrate on questions about my personal life. Am I right? C'mon, give it up!

What's really amusing about that is it coming from the party that impeached Clinton over a blow job.

Maybe he is planning to have poor inner city school children build the moon bases after class. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash. They could also be put into service installing giant mirrors to reflect ambient light so it covers entire areas reducing the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping. It sounds like genius. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-ideas-idUSTRE80P06920120126)

Thanks for that link. OMG, he actually proposed orbital mirrors that could simultaneously light up the dark spaces to make it harder on criminals, and be turned off at night so people could sleep.

Well, the $1000/pound cost is based on the very expensive space shuttle program is it not?

Name a program that is cheaper.

If we found a gold mine on the moon, I suspect the cost of buildinga moon mining base and shooting capsules full of gold back to the earth would cost less than $1000/pound.

What basis do you have for that suspicion?


There are vast quantities of metals available in space. Nor do I see any reason why space travel won't become easier and cheaper as time goes on. It's gonna be us, or it's gonna be Russia, or China, or the EU.

That was the premise behind the Shuttle. Didn't work. Will the next big idea in space travel lead to cheaper access to space? I hope so, but we're kinda not there yet.

The biggest problem with mining space is getting the stuff back down here. Even if you can round up an asteroid, and move it from whatever orbit it's in to a stable orbit near the Earth, getting the stuff down here still is going to take a hell of a lot of effort and cost. Unless maybe you want to drop "city killer" sized asteroids into the Australian outback or something?

Future space mining will be most useful when we have the resources to build things in space with those materials. Don't bring them to Earth, build a factory on the Moon.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Prediction:

If Romney gets the nom, look for attack ads against Obama that paint him as an elitist, out of touch with the common working man, unlike Romney who had to work his way up in life the hard way.

If Gingrich is the nominee, look for attack ads against Obama that paint him as a poor family man, a man with no sense of morals, unlike Gingrich, who knows the true meaning of family values.

[Kozmik]

My prediction:

Santorum will drop out of the race next month and endorse Romney. Nothing else of interest next month except for a debate on CNN, February 22nd. The turning point will be March 5th, when Gingrich, Paul, and Romney debate on NBC, the night before Super Tuesday. It's too soon to tell what will happen on Super Tuesday; however, Gingrich will win Florida, partly because of his performance in the previous debate on CNN.

[Happy Lendervedder]

My prediction:

Santorum will drop out of the race next month and endorse Romney. Nothing else of interest next month except for a debate on CNN, February 22nd. The turning point will be March 5th, when Gingrich, Paul, and Romney debate on NBC, the night before Super Tuesday. It's too soon to tell what will happen on Super Tuesday; however, Gingrich will win Florida, partly because of his performance in the previous debate on CNN.

You held me until "Gingrich will win Florida..."

Nothing anywhere on this planet gives any indication that Gingrich will do any better than finish a distant second in Florida.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

however, Gingrich will win Florida, partly because of his performance in the previous debate on CNN.I don't think he will. Romney currently has a 14 point lead in the polls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-poll-shows-romney-surging-in-fla-gingrich-looks-to-future-primaries/2012/01/30/gIQAiC1TcQ_story.html), probably due to him taking the gloves off and running a lot of negative ads directly attacking Gingrich's past ethic violations. I live in Georgia, but I am just over the state line so I get all the Jacksonville TV stations and the ads run quite a bit. One of them in particular (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6BwCStq6ol) is very effective in its simplicity. It's just a 1997 clip from NBC Nightly News.

[BrainGlutton]

As usual, Tom Tomorrow nails it. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/30/1058729/-State-of-the-primary?via=user)

[BrainGlutton]

Gingrich is addressing a crowd in Orlando holding "46 States to Go" signs. And he's doubling down on the crazy.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Name a program that is cheaper.

The pre-Callenger disaster space shuttle program.

What basis do you have for that suspicion?

It is cheaper to achieve escape velocity from the moon than from Earth.

That was the premise behind the Shuttle. Didn't work. Will the next big idea in space travel lead to cheaper access to space? I hope so, but we're kinda not there yet.

Space shuttle didn't work because we didn't have the stomach for dead astronauts. But sending unmanned rockets form the moon to the earth is much much cheaper.

The biggest problem with mining space is getting the stuff back down here.

Why do you say that? I would think that getting the stuff back here is pretty cheap if not easy.

Gingrich is addressing a crowd in Orlando holding "46 States to Go" signs. And he's doubling down on the crazy.

So has Mitt become inevitable?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Why do you say that? I would think that getting the stuff back here is pretty cheap if not easy.
Getting stuff back to earth is cheap and easy. Getting stuff back to earth in a manner which prevents it from squishing whatever it lands on, less so.

[BrainGlutton]

So has Mitt become inevitable?

I'd say so. Even though Newt was vowing to fight it all the way to the convention-floor, saying he can still win if he sews up all the not-Romney delegates.

I hope it plays out that way. I want Republican riots in the streets of Tampa in August! :D "The whole world is laughing! The whole world is laughing!"

[Spoke]

Hmm. Seems I underestimated the power of negative advertising. Looks like Romney has it in the bag.

[kenobi 65]

Will the next big idea in space travel lead to cheaper access to space?

I'm almost positive that Gingrich was hyping the moon initiative because he was campaigning in Florida, which has seen huge job losses as a result of the end of the Shuttle program. If he keeps talking about that idea in other states, then I give him some credit for sticking to his guns on a "big idea". If he drops it, then it was clearly just pandering to Florida voters.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm almost positive that Gingrich was hyping the moon initiative because he was campaigning in Florida, which has seen huge job losses as a result of the end of the Shuttle program. If he keeps talking about that idea in other states, then I give him some credit for sticking to his guns on a "big idea". If he drops it, then it was clearly just pandering to Florida voters.
Actually, his pandering was even more targeted than that. He was speaking at a rally in Brevard County, the Space Coast, where Kennedy Space Center and virtually all the Florida space contractors are located (and perhaps less historically important, where I went to high school).

Voters in Tallahassee, Tampa or Miami couldn't have cared less. Voters in Orlando, a bit, perhaps, but mostly talking up the space program gets you votes in Brevard.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Getting stuff back to earth is cheap and easy. Getting stuff back to earth in a manner which prevents it from squishing whatever it lands on, less so.

I'm not suggesting a moon catapult throwing stuff from the moon's gravity well into the earth's gravity well and just see what ahppens. If you can maintain minimal maneuverability during approach and reentry to earth and throw a parachute on there, you can almost certainly control the reentry to hit the middle of the ocean.

Hmm. Seems I underestimated the power of negative advertising. Looks like Romney has it in the bag.

I wonder if Newt still thinks Citizen's United was a good Supreme Court decision.

[Irishman]

It is cheaper to achieve escape velocity from the moon than from Earth.

Oh, I thought we were talking about launch costs from the Earth. Sure, launching from the moon is going to be cheaper. But setting up a launch system on the Moon is going to take a shitload of money. And getting the vehicles to the Moon that will be launching from the Moon is going to cost a shitload of money. Like that $1000 per pound cost of launching from Earth, which is what it will take to get the launcher to the Moon in the first place.

But sending unmanned rockets form the moon to the earth is much much cheaper.

Even ignoring the costs of setting up a moonbase so you have a launch system there, and ignoring the cost of making a Moon-mining system to acquire whatever it is you're bringing back, you've still got all the costs associated with building the things that are carrying the stuff to Earth. Is that a rocket you build on Earth,fly to the moon to pick up rocks/gold, then fly back to Earth? Is that a rocket you build on the Moon, requiring you have a rocket factory on the Moon? How much will that cost?

Yeah, your fuel costs on actual launch are going to be far cheaper, but that's only a tiny fragment of the overall picture.

Why do you say that? I would think that getting the stuff back here is pretty cheap if not easy.

Getting stuff down in reasonable quantities under some kind of control without making craters out of cities? You either need hundreds of vehicles, or you have to drop large items into either the ocean or the Australian outback or other desolate nothing. And hope the associated Earthquakes are minor.


I'm not suggesting a moon catapult throwing stuff from the moon's gravity well into the earth's gravity well and just see what ahppens. If you can maintain minimal maneuverability during approach and reentry to earth and throw a parachute on there, you can almost certainly control the reentry to hit the middle of the ocean.

The larger the return item, the harder the "minimal maneuverability". Also, there is the pesky "burn up on reentry" problem. You either need a large enough item that you have something left after reentry, or you need some sort of heat sheild that sacrificially burns up.

Sure, we could rig up a magneto-levitation type launcher on the Moon, and with timing and orbital mechanics we could probably fairly reliably drop huge chunks of rock into the ocean. But you're going to have to sastisfy that safety conscious public that doesn't want giant rocks landing on their house or obliterating their city block or whatever. And that means you're going to have to build all that hardware that controls the stuff coming down, and either build it on Earth and then launch it from Earth to take it to the Moon, or you're going to have to build it on the Moon, which will require a HUGE infrastructure on the Moon.

I'm almost positive that Gingrich was hyping the moon initiative because he was campaigning in Florida, which has seen huge job losses as a result of the end of the Shuttle program. If he keeps talking about that idea in other states, then I give him some credit for sticking to his guns on a "big idea". If he drops it, then it was clearly just pandering to Florida voters.

No shit.

Gingrich's space proposal seems to be to sponsor X-prize type competitions, and let commercial and private interests spend their own money competing for that prize. Wait, who else proposed something like that? Obama.