2012 Presidential Campaign

[SirFozzie]

I'm actually shocked that this review of the 9-9-9 plan hasn't atom-bombed Cain's chances

The Cain 9-9-9 Plan: How Much Would the 99% Pay - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/10/17/the-cain-9-9-9-plan-how-much-would-the-99-pay/)

A friend of mine joked that the current republican party "is a bunch of middle class and lower middle class people being led by nose rings into claiming that the rich people pay too much taxes"

[molson]

Do presidents get to impose tax plans? What's Obama going to impose his?

But anyway, it's kind of strange to me in the facebook/social networking/internet age candidates are so dependent on established political parties. You don't need parties to reach the people anymore. Down the road a bit, when some of the older established people die out - does anyone see the possibility of a social networking candidate or candidates?

[JPhillips]

Do presidents get to impose tax plans? What's Obama going to impose his?

But anyway, it's kind of strange to me in the facebook/social networking/internet age candidates are so dependent on established political parties. You don't need parties to reach the people anymore. Down the road a bit, when some of the older established people die out - does anyone see the possibility of a social networking candidate or candidates?

At this stage you do need parties for organization. GOTV operations are time consuming and expensive and you just can't put together a strong operation without previous infrastructure.

[molson]

At this stage you do need parties for organization. GOTV operations are time consuming and expensive and you just can't put together a strong operation without previous infrastructure.

I guess, I just wonder why you need organization, GOTV operations, and infrastructure. Most people know about candidates through news clips, internet news and comments/message board posts, and social media. Dominate the third and can't you eventually get the first and second?

Edit: Anyway, I'm talking 20 years down the roadish, or longer.

[JPhillips]

Turnout makes the difference in a close election. Get .5% more of your voters to the polls and it might make the difference. You need voter lists, transportation, callers, poll watchers, etc. It's a very labor intensive operation that the parties can develop and fund from year to year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

in this field he's currently the not-Romney.

And that's the only thing that I can find that would really account for his recent surge. Among my friends, the folks most enamored with him seem to be the ones that, well, let's say they aren't particularly notable taxpayers in the first place. Oddly, the most common shared priority (among my friends who are beating the Cain drum) seems to be that they're staunchly pro-Israel ... leaving me to wonder if I missed a Cain memo or something.

(note: they aren't making any particular connection between Cain & that subject, I'm just saying that's probably what I identify these friends most closely with politically, along with some general anti-government rants & the occasional social conservative position)

In some ways, I'm even more puzzled by his abrupt rise than I was by Palin's base of support.

[Coffee Warlord]

Every time Michelle Bachmann speaks I wanna punch her in the face.

[Ben E Lou]

Sheesh. Perry just made a complete ass of himself there on immigration. Has he just given up?

[Coffee Warlord]

I tuned in about 15, 20 minutes ago. Perry has just come off like a total asshole the entire time.

[Coffee Warlord]

Heh. I think hell just froze over. Romney & Perry agree with Ron Paul.

[Ben E Lou]

I tuned in about 15, 20 minutes ago. Perry has just come off like a total asshole the entire time.Heh. OK, so it wasn't just me then. Since posting that comment, several FB friends have said the same thing one way or another.

[SirFozzie]

Am I the only one who got a kick out of Perry channeling Hulk Hogan and calling Herman Cain "brother" twice when discussing the 999 plan?

Here's my full thoughts:

Was that a presidential debate or a Jerry Springer episode?

Thoughts:

Is Mitt Romney going to have to choke a Rick Perry?

Perry calls Cain "brother" twice. I can't tell if Perry was actually thinking that Cain was actually his brotha from another motha, was trying to belittle Cain, or was just channeling the spirit of Hulk Hogan.
No, seriously, Mitt looked like he wanted to dribble Perry like a basketball and then kick him like a football.

Ron Paul is Ron Paul. Give him credit, his answer about the OWSers is not going to earn him any new voters, but he's consistent. Too bad he's still Ron Paul. He's like Romney. He has his niche, and can't rise above it.

Are we SURE that one of these people HAVE to be the Republican Nominee? Can't we pull a Brewster's Millions and make "None of the Above" the candidate? I'm pretty sure NotA would poll rather well against Obama in a two way vote.

[RainMaker]

I think it was a hailmary attempt by Perry. Hoping that whatever he did would be a big hit. I know it didn't work, but he had to try something. His campaign was dead in the water.

[panerd]

Are we SURE that one of these people HAVE to be the Republican Nominee? Can't we pull a Brewster's Millions and make "None of the Above" the candidate? I'm pretty sure NotA would poll rather well against Obama in a two way vote.

Actually I'm quite certain none of the above would blow away Obama and the Republican candidate in a three way race.

[bronconick]

Actually I'm quite certain none of the above would blow away Obama and the Republican candidate in a three way race.


I think the quickest fix for our government would be to include none of the above on the ballot and if it wins, everyone on the ballot is forbidden from running again. We could probably clean out about 90% of Congress that way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually I'm quite certain none of the above would blow away Obama and the Republican candidate in a three way race.

Hmm ... I don't know about that. I think both sides would have a pretty fair contingent who hesitated to do that in the hopes of squeaking out some kind of 33.4% win over NOTA.

The really complicated part would be handling the electoral votes ;)

[Crapshoot]

I think the quickest fix for our government would be to include none of the above on the ballot and if it wins, everyone on the ballot is forbidden from running again. We could probably clean out about 90% of Congress that way.

btw, this the quickest way to disaster - its why term limits are problematic. Impose them, and the only people who win are the lobbyists who are the only ones who know how the system works - and new congressmen are putty in their hands.

[lungs]

Trying to figure out what my dad sees in Herman Cain when in one sentence he was talking about how he agrees with a lot of what the Occupy Wall Street protesters say and the next sentence says he might vote for Herman Cain?

Umm.... dad, did you see what Cain said about occupy wall street?

So my dad watched the debate last night and now proclaims himself a Paulite :)

[larrymcg421]

btw, this the quickest way to disaster - its why term limits are problematic. Impose them, and the only people who win are the lobbyists who are the only ones who know how the system works - and new congressmen are putty in their hands.

Agreed. And the best example of this is when the GOP finally got rid of corrupt entrenched Dem Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, the Dem that eventually took over was none other than Rod Blagojevich. There is no shortage of corrupt politicians and I bet many of the corrupt ones would beat None of the Above, while the honest politicians who tell the public the truth (aka what the public doesn't want to hear) would lose to NOTA.

[gstelmack]

btw, this the quickest way to disaster - its why term limits are problematic. Impose them, and the only people who win are the lobbyists who are the only ones who know how the system works - and new congressmen are putty in their hands.

And that's different from now how?

[Chief Rum]

I think the quickest fix for our government would be to include none of the above on the ballot and if it wins, everyone on the ballot is forbidden from running again. We could probably clean out about 90% of Congress that way.

I can see the candidates' campaign signs now.

"Candidate X--Better Than Nobody"

[bronconick]

btw, this the quickest way to disaster - its why term limits are problematic. Impose them, and the only people who win are the lobbyists who are the only ones who know how the system works - and new congressmen are putty in their hands.

No, because term limits would involve new people coming in. I want Washington vacant and shut down until both parties remove their heads from their asses. Belgium's gone like two years without a federal government now. Can't be that hard.

[Ben E Lou]

Although it seems that nothing good is going to come out of this Presidential Election cycle, there's at least this: I bought SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition for $9.99 last night. Thanks, Herman!

[albionmoonlight]

This might hurt Cain a bit unless he can walk it back: He seems to have given a pretty pro-choice answer to an abortion question:

http://youtu.be/B8WmqiOiUdc

[Coffee Warlord]

Although it seems that nothing good is going to come out of this Presidential Election cycle, there's at least this: I bought SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition for $9.99 last night. Thanks, Herman!

For the full effect, set your commercial, residential, and industrial taxes all to 9/9/9. :)

[SackAttack]

I think that's the default setting, CW.

[Dutch]

This might hurt Cain a bit unless he can walk it back: He seems to have given a pretty pro-choice answer to an abortion question:

http://youtu.be/B8WmqiOiUdc

I like his answer a lot actually.

[ISiddiqui]

So at trivia tonight the final question was name the 7 candidates in the debate in Nevada - I completely forgot about Santorum. Why exactly is he still running?

[RPI-Fan]

So at trivia tonight the final question was name the 7 candidates in the debate in Nevada - I completely forgot about Santorum. Why exactly is he still running?

That must be (by far) the easiest trivia final question I have ever heard of. Was it some sort of "Teen Jeopardy" style version of trivia?

[RPI-Fan]

Here's a great blog post by a friend of mine explaining (in plain English) why Herman Cain's tax plan is so idiotic.

TONIGHT'S FORECAST: DARK: TFD Opinions: Herman Cain's 909 Plan is Even Worse Than the 999 Plan (http://tonightsforecastdark.blogspot.com/2011/10/tfd-opinions-herman-cains-909-plan-is.html)

[RainMaker]

I like his answer a lot actually.
I like it too, although am not necessarily pro-life. But I don't think the government should be making decisions like this for people. He is getting hit hard over it though. Not enough shaming of women and gays for guys like Santorum's liking.

[SteveMax58]

Here's a great blog post by a friend of mine explaining (in plain English) why Herman Cain's tax plan is so idiotic.

TONIGHT'S FORECAST: DARK: TFD Opinions: Herman Cain's 909 Plan is Even Worse Than the 999 Plan (http://tonightsforecastdark.blogspot.com/2011/10/tfd-opinions-herman-cains-909-plan-is.html)

I think Herman Cain is stupid for changing the 999 plan around but I suspect its because there doesn't seem to be widespread agreement that the price of items will go down enough to compensate for the income tax raised on the lowest income group. Or...going down enough, fast enough, anyway. If I were him, I would have revised it to be phased into the 999 approach over time (or something like that).

I actually think that type of concept is where we need to get to. It probably isn't his plan but I do think having everybody paying into a system puts more eyeballs on that system. So even if you started taxing low income people just enough to compensate for the lower price by removing tax from the cost of the good they purchased...I think that's a net positive for the country. And I do like another big concept of his plan...put the cost of REAL taxes on the table so the general public can see them rather than regulating an industry selectively (i.e. which side of the industry lines the right pockets) and obfuscating the costs of items.

Having said all that...even if the guy were president...none of this crap would get passed.

[RainMaker]

I think Herman Cain is stupid for changing the 999 plan around but I suspect its because there doesn't seem to be widespread agreement that the price of items will go down enough to compensate for the income tax raised on the lowest income group. Or...going down enough, fast enough, anyway. If I were him, I would have revised it to be phased into the 999 approach over time (or something like that).

I actually think that type of concept is where we need to get to. It probably isn't his plan but I do think having everybody paying into a system puts more eyeballs on that system. So even if you started taxing low income people just enough to compensate for the lower price by removing tax from the cost of the good they purchased...I think that's a net positive for the country. And I do like another big concept of his plan...put the cost of REAL taxes on the table so the general public can see them rather than regulating an industry selectively (i.e. which side of the industry lines the right pockets) and obfuscating the costs of items.

Having said all that...even if the guy were president...none of this crap would get passed.

Ladies and gentlemen, your GOP frontrunner.

[molson]

Having said all that...even if the guy were president...none of this crap would get passed.

Or maybe it would if the Republicans had a slight majority in Congress - the Dems have seemed to imply that that they would never be "obstructionists" like the Republicans.

[JPhillips]

No, they've rightfully said they haven't been obstructionists to the degree of the current GOP. I would fully expect the Dems to filibuster everything now as well, unless they go spineless which is always a safe bet. Once norms get broken it's damn hard to go back. Our system relies on the minority party not taking advantage of every tactic that they could use. Look at the nomination fight over the Commerce secretary. The government can't function like that.

[lungs]

Surprised there's been no talk about the Herman Cain scandal here.... Did everybody expect this or something?

Does this seal it for Romney?

[gstelmack]

Surprised there's been no talk about the Herman Cain scandal here.... Did everybody expect this or something?

Clarence Thomas part II.

[lungs]

Clarence Thomas part II.

The common tactic is to attack the liberal media for this.

But doesn't the timing tell us that a Republican would be behind putting this out there?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does this seal it for Romney?

Doubt it, not to this point anyway.

Cain still has a double digit lead in South Carolina for example, with Gingrich closing the gap on Romney for 2nd.

[Peregrine]

Surprised there's been no talk about the Herman Cain scandal here.... Did everybody expect this or something?

Does this seal it for Romney?

Personally I think Cain is at the point where all the stuff will come out of the woodwork and bring him down - first the womanizing stuff, now the Wisconsin thing where his campaign manager ran an organization that may have breached a lot of campaign finance rules, etc. I expect there will be more in the future. It's one of the costs of having President be your first run for office - all of the stuff comes out at once.

[molson]

I think the fact that this is such big news is a good sign for Cain. I'm not sure anyone would care as much about Rick Santorum sexual harassment allegations. I wouldn't go as far as to say its a good thing for him, but it might not be a bad thing at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Notable perhaps: 48% of SC voters are with either Cain or Gingrich. Not exactly a sign that "womanizing" claims are really hurting a candidate a whole lot right now.

Poll from yesterday in SC actually shows Cain posting his highest numbers to date there.

If, as it seems reasonable to speculate, the issue was pushed by a primary opponent, I wonder if the effort may backfire. At this point, any candidate that gets negative press from the "mainstream media" might actually get a pushback equal or greater than any damage.

[JPhillips]

I've been shocked at how poorly Cain has managed this. His initial denials followed by many revisions makes him look terrible. I'd think a guy from the modern corporate world would understand how to handle this sort of thing. Now he's set himself up either having to release the confidentiality and let one of his accusers speak or keep the confidentiality and have the press speculate on what he's hiding.

I guess this is the price for not having a real campaign apparatus.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I loved this line on the controversy:


And it’s worth asking: it is at least possible that the scandal, and the resulting media attention, could help Cain more than it hurts him?

New York Times Maureen Dowd sure doesn’t think so. In her column today, she says that “Cain was never going to be the nominee.” He’s too uninformed, too wacky, and now too untrustworthy in his response to the allegations. In her words: “The Herminator was just a raffish passing fancy, like Mr. Wickham, a place for Republicans to store their affections while they try to overcome their aversion to Mitt Romney’s Mr. Darcy.”

Yeah, because if there’s one thing Republican primary voters take their cues from, it’s New York Times columnists making Jane Austen analogies.


Could Sex-Scandal Coverage Be Doing Herman Cain a Favor? (http://entertainment.time.com/2011/11/02/could-sex-scandal-coverage-be-doing-herman-cain-a-favor/)

[Passacaglia]

I would love to hear Herman Cain's response to being compared to Wickham.

[Rizon]

I've been shocked at how poorly Cain has managed this. His initial denials followed by many revisions makes him look terrible. I'd think a guy from the modern corporate world would understand how to handle this sort of thing. Now he's set himself up either having to release the confidentiality and let one of his accusers speak or keep the confidentiality and have the press speculate on what he's hiding.

I guess this is the price for not having a real campaign apparatus.

The evolution of responses was pretty hilarious.

I'm pretty sure, though, that the release of confidentiality isn't up to Cain, but up to the National Restaurant Association.

[Crapshoot]

I would love to hear Herman Cain's response to being compared to Wickham.

I think the odds that Herman Cain knows who Wickham is are... low. Also, as I recall, Wickham transferred his affections from Lizzie due to financial incentives, which come to think of it, is akin to Cain with his book tour (ie, not running for president - running for book tour).

[panerd]

I think the odds that Herman Cain knows who Wickham is are... low. Also, as I recall, Wickham transferred his affections from Lizzie due to financial incentives, which come to think of it, is akin to Cain with his book tour (ie, not running for president - running for book tour).

Why? Because he's a Republican? Because he's black? Because he's stupid? Just clarifying on what would cause you to believe that he doesn't read.

[RainMaker]

I contend that the Herman Cain campaign is an elaborate prank. A Borat-esque routine. Seriously, these are actual things his campaign has released.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ-WTFA2vXY&feature=relmfu

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure, though, that the release of confidentiality isn't up to Cain, but up to the National Restaurant Association.

Which, I believe, had a Romney supporter as its head immediately following Cain's departure.

Things that make you go hmm ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally

Campaign officials said they experienced the most lucrative 24-hour stretch of the campaign as the scandal swirled, bringing in $400,000 in online and phone donations. The one-day take was more than the campaign's monthly average for donations.

edit to add: Let's remember folks, I'm not planning on voting for Cain in the primary. That I'm not inclined to use any of this against his candidacy in the least might, just might, suggest how irrelevant it may be to his chances.

[Passacaglia]

Why? Because he's a Republican? Because he's black? Because he's stupid? Just clarifying on what would cause you to believe that he doesn't read.

Jon Stewart told us so.

Jon Stewart Makes Racially Charged Joke at Herman Cain's Expense: He Doesn't 'Like to Read' | NewsBusters.org (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/06/10/jon-stewarts-makes-racially-charged-joke-herman-cains-expense-he-d)

[panerd]

Jon Stewart told us so.

Jon Stewart Makes Racially Charged Joke at Herman Cain's Expense: He Doesn't 'Like to Read' | NewsBusters.org (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/06/10/jon-stewarts-makes-racially-charged-joke-herman-cains-expense-he-d)

Yeah I'm not a big politically correct guy but couldn't see any other meaning behind him not knowing Pride and Prejudice outside of being a "stupid" Republican or being black. Doesn't everyone have to read that in high school?

[JPhillips]

Which, I believe, had a Romney supporter as its head immediately following Cain's departure.

Things that make you go hmm ...

The most ridiculous part of this whole affair is the far right blaming the liberal media. This has GOP candidate written all over it, most likely Romney or a surrogate.

[I. J. Reilly]

The most ridiculous part of this whole affair is the far right blaming the liberal media. This has GOP candidate written all over it, most likely Romney or a surrogate.

Wouldn't Perry have the most to gain from this? And the fact that it didn't work makes it look even more like a Perry plan.

And I don't think the far right has that much trouble blaming the liberal media and Romney in the same breath.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Doesn't everyone have to read that in high school?

I can assure that's not the case. I definitely didn't have to (class of '84) nor do I believe it's on my son's reading list at any point in high school (not that I've noticed anyway).

Going back as far as 1990, it was not on the top 10 works for high schoolers
Book-Length Works Taught in High School English Courses. ERIC Digest. (http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/book.htm)

Now it's even less likely to appear, as its ilk are being replaced by more contemporary works, as noted in this article from the CSM[i] back in 2007

For the most part, reading lists are still heavy on classics. But consider the differences between reading lists from the 1960s and those in the 1980s. Of the nine most commonly taught books in public high schools in 1963, only one (the 1938 play "Our Town") was written in the 20th century. By 1988, the 10 most commonly taught novels in public schools included four books from the 20th century: "The Great Gatsby" (1925), "Of Mice and Men" (1937), "Lord of the Flies" (1954), and "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1960).

But not all novels take a generation to catapult to required summer reading lists. Some new staples in summer reading lists: "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel, "The Kite Runner" by Khaled Hosseini, "Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time," by Mark Haddon, "Monster" by Walter Dean Myer, and "The Lovely Bones" by Alice Sebold.

I quote that since my own son's required reading will include at least 2 of those ([i]Pi and Kite Runner) and has already knocked out a couple of the classics like Lord and Mockingbird in 7th & 8th grade.

[RainMaker]

Liberal media is blamed for everything. But it is funny seeing the race card played so heavily by people who decry it.

[cuervo72]

I can assure that's not the case. I definitely didn't have to (class of '84)

Nor did I ('91).

[Crapshoot]

Why? Because he's a Republican? Because he's black? Because he's stupid? Just clarifying on what would cause you to believe that he doesn't read.

The last of those. Nothing in his actions suggests a guy who has any depth whatsoever. He's unprepared, he's proud of his ignorance, and revels in the same victimization that he mocks.

[Crapshoot]

Nor did I ('91).


Dola, nor did I, class of 2000.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Liberal media is blamed for everything. But it is funny seeing the race card played so heavily by people who decry it.

Damned if I've been able to figure out some of the "they're just doing this because he's black" stuff I've seen.

Because he's the GOP front-runner I have no problem buying. Maybe a tangent to that is that a black GOP front-runner is considered a bigger threat I might buy, but that's a tangent at best.

One of the dumber things I've seen this week was along the lines of "Would the media have pushed this if Cain was white?" ... umm, duh, of course they would have (as long as he was an (R) anyway).

[Rizon]

Now the AP is reporting a 3rd sexual harassment against Cain (heard it on the radio at lunch).

[RainMaker]

One of the dumber things I've seen this week was along the lines of "Would the media have pushed this if Cain was white?" ... umm, duh, of course they would have (as long as he was an (R) anyway).
Were Clinton and Edwards Republicans?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Now the AP is reporting a 3rd sexual harassment against Cain (heard it on the radio at lunch).

Meh, now he's even with Clinton. Hurry up and elect him.

[panerd]

Were Clinton and Edwards Republicans?

I agree with Clinton but not with Edwards at all. The mainstream press stayed far away from that story for a long time. (including Fox news) They didn't like it that one of their own didn't break the story.

[SteveMax58]

Were Clinton and Edwards Republicans?

Yeah...I'm of the opinion that its more along the lines of him being from the south than it is anything else. He may be stupid for all I know...but I don't think we see the same fixation on stupid candidates from northern states.

Perhaps because much of the national media is based in the north or DC area, there is an elitism at play that generally sees southerners as less intelligent to start with. Might not be "liberal" media per se but the premise is not uncommon.

I dont know...just a theory anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Gary Hart was a Democrat from Colorado. I wonder if its more of a piling on when someone gets "national". It didn't matter when Cain was just a fringe candidate - but when his poll numbers are this high...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Were Clinton and Edwards Republicans?

Relatively speaking, Clinton at least, was a long damn time ago. Plus, wasn't the attention on Edwards personal life - other than the cost of his haircuts- really after the his politically relevancy was already down? I mean, he ended up on the ticket in'04 & withdrew from the '08 race before most of the allegations about his affairs really drew the attention of a lot of mainstream media (the National Enquirer broke the story in October 2007 though). Even as late as June '08 he was reportedly on the short list of VP possibilities though.

[JPhillips]

If Perry didn't leak it, his team is sure happy about it.

A Republican consultant in Oklahoma who has conducted polling for a Super PAC supporting Rick Perry claims that he personally witnessed Herman Cain harass one of his accusers. And — from what he saw at least — the case is no joke.

“I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up,” strategist Chris Wilson told local station KTOK in an interview on Wednesday.

According to Wilson, the main incident occurred at a DC-area restaurant and that “everybody was aware of it,” but that for legal reasons he can’t discuss the details. But he added that if Cain’s accuser comes forward — and one of the two woman who reportedly received a settlement has expressed interest in doing just that — her story won’t be pretty. “If she talks about it, I think it’ll be the end of his campaign,” he said.

“It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left—-everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up,” Wilson said.

Wilson’s firm, WPA Research, has conducted polling on behalf of Make Us Great Again, a Super PAC founded by Perry’s former chief of staff Mike Toomey that’s running ads in support of the Texas governor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Perry didn't leak it, his team is sure happy about it.

Since I seem to have about as much chance of winning the nomination as Perry does at this point, I wonder if they're shooting for Romney-Perry '12?

[Crapshoot]

Since I seem to have about as much chance of winning the nomination as Perry does at this point, I wonder if they're shooting for Romney-Perry '12?

That would shock me - Perry just flat out dislikes Romney, as that previous debate showed, and the feeling is mutual.

And you're really that skeptical about Perry? A polling cycle that shows Romney has a 25% ceiling in the GOP primary, where the GOP has run into not-romney's ranging from DONALD TRUMP! to Herman Cain, you think Perry's Texas cash won't keep him around long enough to at least have a shot?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Alabama radio host, citing unnamed sources close to Palin, says she's "reconsidering" POTUS race. Dr. Gina Loudon & Lee Davis chat about Sarah Palin possibly “reconsidering” « RuBegonia (http://bit.ly/vA8PTN)

538 on Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight/status/131860660010237952)

[Crapshoot]

Nah, Palin is not coming back in. The fact that she would get her ass kicked again (in the GOP primary) means that all those lucrative offers of her as a "conservative" champion would dry up.

[SackAttack]

Relatively speaking, Clinton at least, was a long damn time ago. Plus, wasn't the attention on Edwards personal life - other than the cost of his haircuts- really after the his politically relevancy was already down? I mean, he ended up on the ticket in'04 & withdrew from the '08 race before most of the allegations about his affairs really drew the attention of a lot of mainstream media (the National Enquirer broke the story in October 2007 though). Even as late as June '08 he was reportedly on the short list of VP possibilities though.

Also, I'm pretty sure the sexual allegations against Bill Clinton were levelled after his second term began.

John Edwards dropped out of the '08 race in January and didn't really face media scrutiny until, like...August? I think after the DNC convention had already taken place.

This really is more akin to Clarence Thomas than to Bill Clinton, in that this stuff is coming to light while the candidate is still seeking his position. The allegations against Clinton may or may not have long-term ramifications for his legacy (whatever you consider that to be).

This is...a little different. Depending on how seriously the GOP electorate takes these charges, and how much verity is involved, it could impact Cain's political career. His best shot is for the Tea Party folk to ride the 'lamestream media' dismissal train and dominate turnout at the primaries/caucuses. I mean, that was always his path to the nomination anyway, but that base is going to be significantly more likely to overlook what they'll see as the press trying to destroy their man than the more moderate elements of the electorate would be.

[Ben E Lou]

Also, I'm pretty sure the sexual allegations against Bill Clinton were levelled after his second term began.The impeachment was in December 1998 shortly before Christmas, so you're probably right there.

[Off Thread Topic] It's funny how some events in history are forever linked to significant life events. I will always know the timing of the impeachment without needing to look it up because it was the first Christmas of my marriage and we were spending Christmas with my wife's family, so we went to Columbus to see my family a weekend or two before Christmas. My dad ended up getting an infection and spending most of the time we were there in the hospital. I specifically recall watching the impeachment vote from his hospital room, and it's an indelible memory because it ended up being the last time I saw him. (He died fairly suddenly in January '99, early on the morning of the Falcons' Super Bowl appearance. Ol' Eugene's, um, "indiscretion" hit the radio news that morning while I was driving home.) [/Off Thread Topic]

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Also, I'm pretty sure the sexual allegations against Bill Clinton were levelled after his second term began.

If you're talking pure harrassment, maybe. But Gennifer Flowers was during the election, and the general take on Clinton was that he was a sleazebag (ie no specific allegations but certainly assumptions).

[Ben E Lou]

And I tend to agree with Jon on this point: IF Cain can successfully spin this as being some minor incident that happened a long time ago being brought up by the "establishment" politicians and kept in the headlines by the "establishment" media, it will be a win for him, at least in terms of the primaries.

[JPhillips]

If you're talking pure harrassment, maybe. But Gennifer Flowers was during the election, and the general take on Clinton was that he was a sleazebag (ie no specific allegations but certainly assumptions).

This. The famous Barbara Walters interview with the Clintons was before the 1992 election.

[Ben E Lou]

I do find the comments about Cain being unintelligent as rather, um, unintelligent. Dude is a math/computers geek at his core, and pretty darned good at it. Cain is clearly ignorant on some matters, but he's no dummy. He's a smart guy--probably not as smart as Newt, but he's a long way from being Perry. ;)

Last thought for now: part of me still thinks Cain's run is nothing more than a smart business move. He'll sell books, command fat speaking fees, perhaps get a much fatter talk show deal, and maybe be a go-to commentator for Fox when this is all said and done. His national recognition is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up from what it was 9 months ago.

[stevew]

I need to see pix of any of these 3 women. Im guessing these chicks weren't 9/9/9 out of 10 in the looks department.

[JPhillips]

I do find the comments about Cain being unintelligent as rather, um, unintelligent. Dude is a math/computers geek at his core, and pretty darned good at it. Cain is clearly ignorant on some matters, but he's no dummy. He's a smart guy--probably not as smart as Newt, but he's a long way from being Perry. ;)

Last thought for now: part of me still thinks Cain's run is nothing more than a smart business move. He'll sell books, command fat speaking fees, perhaps get a much fatter talk show deal, and maybe be a go-to commentator for Fox when this is all said and done. His national recognition is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up from what it was 9 months ago.

I think he's just as shocked as anyone else that he's actually a frontrunner.

[Ben E Lou]

This. The famous Barbara Walters interview with the Clinton's was before the 1992 election."Famous." I'm not sure I'd use that word. I wonder if it's as simple as the media ramping up its interest in the "sleaze factor" as the 90s progressed, but I strongly suspect that "Monica Lewisky" and "Paula Jones" are far more well known names than "Gennifer Flowers." I paid attention to the '92 election, but if pressed, I don't think I could have called Flowers by name.

[Ben E Lou]

I think he's just as shocked as anyone else that he's actually a frontrunner.Methinks you are grossly misunderestimating the ego of the average CEO. ;) A guy like Cain doesn't run unless he thinks he can make a splash.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A guy like Cain doesn't run unless he thinks he can make a splash.

... or money ;)

[Ben E Lou]

... or money ;)Well, sure! But that's what I'm saying--that he's gotta make a splash to make money off of this. :D

[JPhillips]

If you look at his campaign staff and appearance schedule through October it's pretty obvious he wasn't running a full campaign. This was initially about selling books and positioning himself to make money after the election. I don't think he's upset that he's now a frontrunner, but I do think it caught him by surprise.

[stevew]

... or money ;)

Or, a splash like Scrooge McDuck into a pile of money.

[Passacaglia]

I do find the comments about Cain being unintelligent as rather, um, unintelligent. Dude is a math/computers geek at his core, and pretty darned good at it. Cain is clearly ignorant on some matters, but he's no dummy. He's a smart guy--probably not as smart as Newt, but he's a long way from being Perry. ;)

Last thought for now: part of me still thinks Cain's run is nothing more than a smart business move. He'll sell books, command fat speaking fees, perhaps get a much fatter talk show deal, and maybe be a go-to commentator for Fox when this is all said and done. His national recognition is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy up from what it was 9 months ago.

I think that's reading too much into this -- at least, reading too much into the comments made here. This all came up because of "Pride and Prejudice" -- I think you can say that Cain doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would have read Pride and Prejudice, and that doesn't mean you're saying Cain is unintelligent. In fact, I'm guessing most of the people who post here haven't read it, yet are still intelligent (especially if you remove the people who had to read it in high school).

I agree on it being a smart business move -- personally, I'd never heard of Godfather's Pizza until he ran. But last week, I saw one of their menus lying on the ground, and thought "hey, that place does exist!"

Also FTR, a few months back, my mom, a liberal special education teacher who thinks Republican is a dirty word, liked him on Facebook. I can only assume she got some sort of promotional freebie for doing it.

[Ben E Lou]

I think that's reading too much into this -- at least, reading too much into the comments made here. This all came up because of "Pride and Prejudice" -- I think you can say that Cain doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would have read Pride and Prejudice, and that doesn't mean you're saying Cain is unintelligent. In fact, I'm guessing most of the people who post here haven't read it, yet are still intelligent (especially if you remove the people who had to read it in high school).There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused. ;)

[Coffee Warlord]

There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused. ;)

Oh so what, we all look alike? ;)

Personally, I'd define him as: Smart when it comes to operating businesses, Stupid when it comes to operating politically. "Governing" as business is a very, very, very different thing than governing a country.

[Crapshoot]

There was at least one comment here saying he is "stupid." And you may be right about differentiating this board from other places. I get all of you people confused. ;)

Perhaps stupid is harsh, but listening to him on anything politics related suggests a guy with no depth in the arena; the 9-9-9 plan (Keep saying it! that answers everything!), the economic advisor who is a "wealth management advisor", the President of Uzbekistan, the "China is trying to develop nuclear capacity" bit - where on earth has he shown any depth, at all in politics?

[Ben E Lou]

Perhaps stupid is harsh, but listening to him on anything politics related suggests a guy with no depth in the arena; the 9-9-9 plan (Keep saying it! that answers everything!), the economic advisor who is a "wealth management advisor", the President of Uzbekistan, the "China is trying to develop nuclear capacity" bit - where on earth has he shown any depth, at all in politics?My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

[SackAttack]

"Famous." I'm not sure I'd use that word. I wonder if it's as simple as the media ramping up its interest in the "sleaze factor" as the 90s progressed, but I strongly suspect that "Monica Lewisky" and "Paula Jones" are far more well known names than "Gennifer Flowers." I paid attention to the '92 election, but if pressed, I don't think I could have called Flowers by name.

Honestly, I never heard about Gennifer Flowers until Paula Jones sued him, and I suspect I was abnormally interested in politics for a 10-year-old.

It might be an interview that's gained notoriety as a result of later events, but it didn't have the cultural impact when it happened that the deposition did.

[Crapshoot]

My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

FWIW, I agree with you - I think Cain is trying to sell books and a business as a motivational speaker, and his popularity has exceeded even his best hopes. Still, if he wants to stay in the game, he needs to shape up. If not, than bow out. If you're a hard-core conservative in the GOP right now, are you really going to be happy if Romney wins with 30% because a bunch of ego candidates split the "conservative" vote?

[JPhillips]

Honestly, I never heard about Gennifer Flowers until Paula Jones sued him, and I suspect I was abnormally interested in politics for a 10-year-old.

It might be an interview that's gained notoriety as a result of later events, but it didn't have the cultural impact when it happened that the deposition did.

It was a very big deal at the time. Having Hillary sit with him during the interview saved his campaign. Without that interview and Hillary's support I don't think he would have been the president.

edit: Of course me misremembering it as BW instead of Sixty Minutes doesn't help my point!

[Chief Rum]

Why is it that the only thing I remember about Gennifer Flowers outside of vaguely knowing Clinton had an affair with her is that she appeared in Playboy?

And do I want to know what that says about me? I say no. :D

[cuervo72]

I think it was Penthouse, actually.

[Ben E Lou]

If you're a hard-core conservative in the GOP right now, are you really going to be happy if Romney wins with 30% because a bunch of ego candidates split the "conservative" vote?This is a fair point. My only counterpoint is this: seems to me that the hard-core conservatives in the GOP are going to be disappointed regardless of how this whole thing shakes down. Nominate one of the conservative candidates, and Obama wins. Nominate Romney, and they're still not happy. My guess is that only significant scandals or other major problems for Obama and Romney--enough to allow Cain or Perry to win the nomination and the Presidency--will make the conservative Republicans happy with the 2012 election.

[Ben E Lou]

edit: Of course me misremembering it as BW instead of Sixty Minutes doesn't help my point!:p

[Crapshoot]

This is a fair point. My only counterpoint is this: seems to me that the hard-core conservatives in the GOP are going to be disappointed regardless of how this whole thing shakes down. Nominate one of the conservative candidates, and Obama wins. Nominate Romney, and they're still not happy. My guess is that only significant scandals or other major problems for Obama and Romney--enough to allow Cain or Perry to win the nomination and the Presidency--will make the conservative Republicans happy with the 2012 election.

I figure you're a conservative Republican - who are you voting for? :D

[Ben E Lou]

I figure you're a conservative Republican - who are you voting for? :DI'm not a conservative Republican. Philosophically, I lean Libertarian on most issues. But more than anything else, I'm fairly well beyond thinking there will be change in my lifetime from the White House or Capitol that is acceptable to me, so I guess I'm just a cynic more than anything else. ;) It doesn't help this condition much that I've lived all my adult life in states and districts where the outcome in General Elections was pretty much a given. Cobb County, GA was going (R), period. DeKalb County? Straight-up (D). And the Lowcountry as well as the state of SC are decidedly (R). I still vote in nearly every election, but I'm more inclined to believe my vote actually matters in primaries than in General Elections. I will vote in the (R) primary in SC, probably for Cain, but maybe for Paul. In short, my admittedly-insignificant vote is typically cast for "something different," at least when that exists on the ballot.

[Chief Rum]

I think it was Penthouse, actually.

Yeah, I didn't stop to check the letterhead too often on my way inside in those days. Not that I stopped long at Gennifer Flowers' pictorial neither.

[panerd]

Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/paul-says-friendship-best-way-deal-iran-165913503.html)

What a nutty stance! Everyone knows that American soldiers' lives are the best way to deal with Iran! They may build a nuke!!!! OMG, how do we deal with China and Russia having thousands of nukes? But they will nuke Israel!!!! OMG, of course they will nuke a country that has hundreds of nukes and two Superpower allies with thousands of nukes. They are stupid brown people intent on destroying the world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought this was interesting ... and not because of the scriptual reference so let's try not to take it down that road m'kay.

Herman Cain posted on his facebook a little while ago
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus stopped by just now before the debate and shared Isaiah 54:17 with me. God bless him and the rest of this great country!

That scripture reads No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

The reason I'm posting is that I wonder how the other GOP hopefuls will react (mostly privately I imagine) to Priebus lending support to Cain. I also wonder whether we might be able to read something into the RNC's own belief/skepticism about the allegations.

[mckerney]

Oops.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zUA2rDVrmNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Thomkal]

Man what a disaster, he should just drop out now.

[cartman]

Molly Ivins is up there somewhere smiling.

[DeToxRox]

Rick Perry is like the Aggies, starts off well enough but god forbid he finish strong.

[mckerney]

He still reminds me of Jefferson D'Arcy

http://www.bundyology.com/bjeff.jpg

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oops.

Okay, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Who was it said "EPA" from the wings?

[RPI-Fan]

Okay, that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Who was it said "EPA" from the wings?

Romney

[stevew]

He still reminds me of Jefferson D'Arcy

http://www.bundyology.com/bjeff.jpg

Much like Ted McGinley, Rick Perry will destroy Happy Days.

[Grover]

That was absolutely brilliant.

[RainMaker]

Paul says friendship best way to deal with Iran - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/paul-says-friendship-best-way-deal-iran-165913503.html)

What a nutty stance! Everyone knows that American soldiers' lives are the best way to deal with Iran! They may build a nuke!!!! OMG, how do we deal with China and Russia having thousands of nukes? But they will nuke Israel!!!! OMG, of course they will nuke a country that has hundreds of nukes and two Superpower allies with thousands of nukes. They are stupid brown people intent on destroying the world.

The following things occur in Iran:

-Women are considered half the value of men
-One male witness is worth two female witnesses
-Married women may not leave their home without their husbands permission
-Women must be covered
-Capital punishment for such heinous crimes as adultery, drinking alcohol, and having oral sex
-You can be killed for saying something negative about the government or Islam

I can go on and on with this. But I guess my point is, I don't want to be friends with low-life savages like that.

[Crapshoot]

The following things occur in Iran:

-Women are considered half the value of men
-One male witness is worth two female witnesses
-Married women may not leave their home without their husbands permission
-Women must be covered
-Capital punishment for such heinous crimes as adultery, drinking alcohol, and having oral sex
-You can be killed for saying something negative about the government or Islam

I can go on and on with this. But I guess my point is, I don't want to be friends with low-life savages like that.

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.

[RainMaker]

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.
And I don't think we should be friends with those countries. And yes, I'm on a moral high horse for thinking our country should look down upon those with civilizations 500 years behind the times.

[panerd]

Are you really this much of an idiot? we are friends with the Saudi's (allies, even); all those rules apply there. We were friends with Chile when they were torturing the opposition. Getting on a moral high horse is hilarious, even more so when THEIR neighbors do exactly the same thing and we are okay with it. Its Realpolitik, not morality, and do not pretend otherwise. I don't actually agree with Panerd, but your arguement is so absurd it made me laugh.

Hey I'm with Paul on the soundbytes that don't make the front page (most of the time anywhere in the paper). Our country is going bankrupt. We can't keep forcing our values on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chile... Even if we want to we have no money. This is why empires collapse.

I agree that Rainmaker is almost comical though buying the company line on women and oppression. The stated reason for American intervention all over the world for the past 40 years. I know he's capable of deeper thinking than this I wonder if his account was hacked by somebody else. And I wonder what will happen if Romney or Cain or somebody wins the presidency and starts bombing Iran. I am sure he will fully support installing American values (especially American corporate values) all throughout the world!

[SteveMax58]

Hey I'm with Paul on the soundbytes that don't make the front page (most of the time anywhere in the paper). Our country is going bankrupt. We can't keep forcing our values on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Chile... Even if we want to we have no money. This is why empires collapse.

Well, I don't know that we need to be friends with Iran but I do agree that we shouldn't be friends with countries who don't share the vast majority of ideals with us. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury to be quite as selective so long as we need their oil.

This is 1 of the dozens of reasons to add to a real energy independence initiative. That doesn't mean we replace foreign oil for domestic oil 1 for 1...but it does mean we should be thinking bigger than "everybody cram into boxes in the cities & ride bikes to work". To that end...it would actually bring us back to the reasons Section 8 housing was created in the 1st place...because low income people couldn't afford the city when everybody lived there.

I'm digressing again but I just see the vast majority of economic & geopolitical problems we have tied to world oil supply. The world supply of it is dominated by cultures that are not in line with Western societal thinking & every day we wait, the balance of wealth continues to go towards those same cultures/societies. Its a bit like borrowing money off your irresponsible kid...you can borrow it but then you have no business lecturing them about their own irresponsibility.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't see how it isn't Romney.

Bachmann flamed out and apparently has no money.

Cain's scandal seems to really have some legs, and he's always been running for Well-Paid-Pundit-In-Chief instead of President anyway.

Paul has never been able to get his support above his core supporters.

Gingrich will probably get a bit of a bump, but he's (very) low on cash right now.

Perry comes across as an idiot. And not a likable idiot.

Huntsman is too liberal.

Palin/Jindal/Huckabee/Christie/etc. would get too late of a start.

Santorum I know nothing about, but no one seems to be supporting him.


If I had to pick a non-Mitt, I guess I would go with Santorum (on the theory that I know little enough about him that I can't say why it isn't him) or Gingrich. As a former Speaker, he's probably still able to raise the money and the institutional support pretty quickly if it looks like his campaign has some legs.

But, really, I don't see how it isn't Mitt at this point.

[QuikSand]

It doesn't seem too far-fetched that Newt Gingrich would be a logical "next in line" for the anti-Romney legion. Prediction markets seem to agree - a month ago, his chance to win the nomination was judged at <2%, now it's around 9% (via InTrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=654836)).

[JPhillips]

There really isn't anyone left but Newt to be the notRomney.

It's got to be worrisome for the Romney camp that even after the parade of losers challenging him has been totally exposed he still can't break out of the mid-twenties.

[cartman]

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.

[GrantDawg]

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.


He needs to write them on his hand so he can remember them. :)

[AgustusM]

My first two thoughts are...

1. Depth != winning. I think the 9-9-9 plan is a perfect example. It won't pass if suggested, won't work if passed, but it sounds catchy and simple and everyone hates the IRS, and hates filling out all those forms, so the "GET RID OF THE IRS AND PUT SOMETHING EASIER IN PLACE" works. Little details like viability and being good for the country? Bah. Most voters don't pay close enough attention for that stuff to matter. *shurg*
2. Again, I'm not terribly convinced that winning is the goal here anyway.

best political analysis I have read in years.

The worst part about the current harassment scandal is somehow that has become the story instead of the absurdity of the 9-9-9 plan. It drives me crazy the nonsense that we as a society become obsessed with.

[cartman]

As someone (not sure who, maybe Molly Ivins) once said:

How does a Republican win an election? By letting them talk for 30 seconds.
How does a Republican lose an election? By letting them talk for two minutes.

[Thomkal]

Rick Perry is going to go on Fox News in a bit for an announcement. All I can figure is that he's going to give three reasons he is staying in the race.

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be. :rolleyes:

I'd like to suggest whatever agency it is that allows incompetent people to think they can successfully run for President. :)

[panerd]

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be. :rolleyes:

I'd like to suggest whatever agency it is that allows incompetent people to think they can successfully run for President. :)

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected. Perry can't name the agencies he will get rid of because he doesn't really know or care somebody just told him what is trending high to the Republican crowd. Obviously the chance of his following through with promises that he can't even come up with in a debate is basically zero.

Besides him getting nailed and looking like a fool I would be interested to hear how he is really any different than most of the candidates.

[RainMaker]

I agree that Rainmaker is almost comical though buying the company line on women and oppression. The stated reason for American intervention all over the world for the past 40 years. I know he's capable of deeper thinking than this I wonder if his account was hacked by somebody else. And I wonder what will happen if Romney or Cain or somebody wins the presidency and starts bombing Iran. I am sure he will fully support installing American values (especially American corporate values) all throughout the world!

I don't believe in American intervention. I just don't believe we need to be pals with countries who don't respect even the most basic of human rights.

[Grover]

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected.

Funny, this works perfectly for Romney too.

[panerd]

Funny, this works perfectly for Romney too.

No doubt. (Obama as well)

[JediKooter]

Oh he's already been on all the morning news shows telling people to go to his website and tell him what they think the third government agency that should be abolished should be. :rolleyes:


Can we suggest Texas as the 3rd one? I mean, I know it isn't an agency, but, I would love to see the response to that. :D

[Thomkal]

Can we suggest Texas as the 3rd one? I mean, I know it isn't an agency, but, I would love to see the response to that. :D

Actually he's already tried that-when he suggested secession for Texas from the US. :D

[molson]

He is just a perfect example of a politician who has no principles at all and just says whatever it takes to be elected.

Doesn't Perry have a few views very unpopular with the Republican base?

It was a funny slip-up, but I think the better-polished, faker candidates are more likely to have memorized everything properly. Obama and Romney aren't making mistakes like that, because they're the most manufactured, image-conscious, candidate robots one could possibly design. That doesn't make them sincere, it sure as hell doesn't make them effective as presidents.

Presentation is THE most important thing for a U.S. presidential candidate. Sure, a botch like that could reflect a declining mental capacity I guess, or a problem with pressure, but otherwise, I'd be a lot more concerned with somebody's background (or lack of a background) then whether he botches something at a debate.

[panerd]

Doesn't Perry have a few views very unpopular with the Republican base?

It was a funny slip-up, but I think the better-polished, faker candidates are more likely to have memorized everything properly. Obama and Romney aren't making mistakes like that, because they're the most manufactured, image-conscious, candidate robots one could possibly design. That doesn't make them sincere, it sure as hell doesn't make them effective as presidents.

Presentation is THE most important thing for a U.S. presidential candidate. Sure, a botch like that could reflect a declining mental capacity I guess, or a problem with pressure, but otherwise, I'd be a lot more concerned with somebody's background (or lack of a background) then whether he botches something at a debate.

Maybe if they question him on something like his view on some small part of some law. He was talking about eliminating entire federal departments. Don't get me wrong I am all for eliminating the department of education (I am a teacher and see firsthand how worthless it is) but it just sounds contrived to all of a sudden have three departments you want to eliminate and you can't even come up with one of them.

[JPhillips]

Add waterboarding to the list of things cheered for at GOP debates.

[mckerney]

<object id="flashObj" width="440" height="300" classid="clsid:D><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1275195602001&playerID=1859729760&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGgk8Us~,dLqgruaIT6oumXBqsZK9EHUf5qLSFWb3&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1275195602001&playerID=1859729760&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGgk8Us~,dLqgruaIT6oumXBqsZK9EHUf5qLSFWb3&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="440" height="300" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[Qwikshot]

I don't believe in American intervention. I just don't believe we need to be pals with countries who don't respect even the most basic of human rights.

Guess that means we end trading with China and Russia and Mexico and India and Vietnam and Indonesia and Thailand and....

[Julio Riddols]

These Republican nominee debates are like one of those bottle games at the fair. No matter how hard you hit the damn things, they never all go away and no one ever wins shit. Then some asshole stacks em back up for the next guy.

[Kodos]

Why can't we get someone like Colin Powell to run?

[JediKooter]

Why can't we get someone like Colin Powell to run?

He probably has too much integrity.

[Kodos]

That's probably it, really.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why can't we get someone like Colin Powell to run?

I'm pretty sure the liberals already have their candidate, but I suppose he's welcome to launch a primary challenge if he wanted to.

[Kodos]

I had a feeling he wouldn't be high on your list. But surely he is better than Obama in your book?

[JonInMiddleGA]

But surely he is better than Obama in your book?

{scratches head} "Better" is a pretty low standard. Powell endorsed Obama, how much more disqualification does anyone need?

[GrantDawg]

<object id="flashObj" classid="clsid<img src=" images="" smilies="" biggrin.gif"="" alt="" title="Biggrin" smilieid="127" class="inlineimg" border="0" height="300" width="440">>







<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=1275195602001&playerID=1859729760&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAGgk8Us~,dLqgruaIT6oumXBqsZK9EHUf5qLSFWb3&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" height="300" width="440"></object>


The point of that? He was trying to answer a complicated problem that is very nuanced and couldn't find a glib soundbite to satisfy you?

[Dutch]

The point of that? He was trying to answer a complicated problem that is very nuanced and couldn't find a glib soundbite to satisfy you?

My response would have been, "I agree with how Obama handled it...it wasn't our fight and I believe the distance was welcomed and warranted. The bottom line is that all American's should support any nation of people who choose to uproot non-democratic, oppressive, antiquated dictatorships. I admit I was very skeptical at first, because the indirect approach of no-fly zones after an uprising was what got us into the long mess in Iraq...I am very thankful that our armed services, intelligence agencies, and NATO allies were able to work together to support the people of Libya in a relatively quick manner and I hope we continue to support the people throughout the middle east--particularly in Syria right now--as they begin their fight to remove their oppresors from power and take responsibility for their respective nations."

I mean, maybe not exactly like that, but close enough. I'm going to guess that foreign policy isn't his strength...

[RainMaker]

What is his strength?

[bhlloy]

I'd like my presidential candidate to actually know which country is which, that something pretty fucking major happened there recently and to have an opinion on it.

I might have a lower opinion of Cain than I do of Palin, and that's saying something.

[Dutch]

What is his strength?

Beats the fuck out of me, I know he's not Robin Hood, so there's that. :)

[Dutch]

I'd like my presidential candidate to actually know which country is which, that something pretty fucking major happened there recently and to have an opinion on it.

You've never voted before?

[mckerney]

Cain Says 'We Need a Leader, Not a Reader' - NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/cain-says-we-need-a-leader-not-a-reader/)

First Pokemon, now The Simpsons.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C9f1TYyvEx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[JPhillips]

What the hell is Bachmann on:

“One man stood up, he was over 7-feet tall. He was a physician in the community. And he said, ‘I had a little lady in my office and because of Obamacare, I had to call the IRS and I had to get a number to put on a form before I could see her.’”

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Cain looking like he's done with, "reassessing his campaign".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Cain looking like he's done with, "reassessing his campaign".

I'm sure that we've only see the tip of the iceberg. He should get out before he loses the last 1% of his dignity at this point.

[panerd]

Gingrich should hope Cain stays in the race to deflect from his own past.

[JPhillips]

Today's polls have Gingrich up big in Iowa ans South Carolina and only four back in New Hampshire. Shocking that he might be the nominee.

[GrantDawg]

Today's polls have Gingrich up big in Iowa ans South Carolina and only four back in New Hampshire. Shocking that he might be the nominee.


I am shocked as well. Still think Romney will pull it out because of the size of his machine. Niether are going to be very exciting main candidates for the GOP.

[albionmoonlight]

Cain, IMO, was always in this to increase his speaking/book fees and/or get a gig on Fox. It was never about becoming President; it was about free advertising for the Herman Cain brand.

If I am right about that, now is the time for him to get out. Blame it on harassment from the liberal media and start planning a lucrative career as pundit-in-chief.

[larrymcg421]

Very bad news for Romney. If Gingrich dominates Iowa and SC and comes close in NH, then the other anti-Romney candidates will be finished. Romney won't have a chance in a head to head race against Gingrich, because all those Cain, Perry, Bachmann etc. supporters will flock to Gingrich. A significant portion of the GOP does not want him as the nominee and his best hope is for their to be a crowded field of anti-Romneys to divide the votes.

[Ben E Lou]

Very bad news for Romney. If Gingrich dominates Iowa and SC and comes close in NH, then the other anti-Romney candidates will be finished. Romney won't have a chance in a head to head race against Gingrich, because all those Cain, Perry, Bachmann etc. supporters will flock to Gingrich. A significant portion of the GOP does not want him as the nominee and his best hope is for their to be a crowded field of anti-Romneys to divide the votes.http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/herman.png

[JPhillips]

Things don't look good for Romney.

There are 13 places PPP has polled the Republican race in October or November where it also did a poll sometime between January and March. In those places Romney's net favorability has dropped by an average of 15 points over the course of the year.

On average Romney's favorability with primary voters was 54/25 in these 13 places at the begininng of the year. Now it's only 50/35. His problem is partially that his positives have gone down but more than that it's that as his name recognition has increased, most folks moving off the fence have gone into the negative column.

I also saw an analysis that used net favorability numbers to determine where Cain voters would go. They would go to Gingrich by 3 to 1 over Romney. If the other notRomneys drop out or fade to irrelevance before NH I think Romney's toast.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Niether are going to be very exciting main candidates for the GOP.

You can say that again.

[flounder]

Startled Deer Becomes New Republican Frontrunner (http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/11/15/startled-deer-becomes-new-republican-frontrunner/)

Meanwhile, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted that his recent rise in the polls is not a fluke: “The American people want an adult, and no one has a stronger record of adultery than I do.”

[Dutch]

meh, when it's all said and done, Romney takes the GOP nomination with ease if the only other guy left is Newt Gringrich.

[kcchief19]

The point of that? He was trying to answer a complicated problem that is very nuanced and couldn't find a glib soundbite to satisfy you?
That answer was to a yes or no question.

[kcchief19]

One thing I'm not worried about is Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee much less president. While I don't like his politics, I actually do respect his willingness to admit he's wrong and not try to hide from his record too much. But what I call modifying your position based on new information everyone else calls flip-flopping. Newt is a scandal tie bomb waiting to go off.

I just don't know who the nominee is once everyone gets torpedoed. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if by the end of December Huntsman was riding high at the top of the herd.

[panerd]

One thing I'm not worried about is Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee much less president. While I don't like his politics, I actually do respect his willingness to admit he's wrong and not try to hide from his record too much. But what I call modifying your position based on new information everyone else calls flip-flopping. Newt is a scandal tie bomb waiting to go off.

I just don't know who the nominee is once everyone gets torpedoed. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if by the end of December Huntsman was riding high at the top of the herd.

Yeah he apperently took a big payment from Fannie and Freddie Mac. While I am not sure it is the big deal it will be made out to be if he makes the general election it is pretty tough to be anti big-government and anti "business as usual in Washington" with this happening within the last 5 years. It's got to be Romney and that may lead to Obama's re-election which might not be the worst thing to happen if the Republicans still control big parts of Congress. Gridlock: About the best a Ron Paul supporter can hope for in this next election. Romney as president: immediate disaster as we go to war with Iran within the year. At least Obama (and Republicans who don't like war when Obama is president) will hold off the military industrial complex a little bit.

[RainMaker]

Gingrich is just a boilerplate politician. And I'm sort of surprised he's winning in the polls since he's essentially everything that people supposedly hate about politicians. This is a guy who was going on TV before the 2008 election demanding Obama give back donations from Freddie Mac now that the government had to bail them out when he himself had received millions from them for consulting.

I just don't get it, he's basically what everyone has been hating on over the past decade.

[kcchief19]

Exactly ... take your pick on Newt. He's got the huge lobbying business that made big money off Fannie and Freddie. He's changed positions on just about everything at one time or another -- just wait until that video of him sitting next to Nancy Pelosi talking about the reality of climate change ends up in an attack ad.

And if there was anybody screwing more people who weren't his wife in DC in the '90s than Bill, it was Newt.

[SirFozzie]

Newt is the latest Not Mitt Romney, that's all.

[JPhillips]

The elephant in the room is his religion.

More than four in 10 American voters say they are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon in the White House, a reflection of the steep challenge facing Mitt Romney in the GOP primary.

According to a survey released Tuesday (Nov. 8) by the Public Religion Research Institute, Romney faces an identity problem among those who already know he's a Mormon, and those who don't but generally have qualms about the faith...

Among white evangelical voters, 47 percent expressed discomfort with a Mormon president, compared to 42 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of white mainline Protestants. Among Americans overall, the figure was 42 percent.

How many people simply won't vote for Mitt due to his religion? Many of those folks may not love Gingrich, but he's now the best alternative.

[Swaggs]

I don't know if others feel this way, but it seems to me that the past two presidential losers (Kerry and McCain) were the safe, "gives us the best chance in the general election" candidates and that is how they won their primaries. Romney appears to be that guy this cycle.

[SteveMax58]

What better, Mormon or Muslim?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't know if others feel this way, but it seems to me that the past two presidential losers (Kerry and McCain) were the safe, "gives us the best chance in the general election" candidates and that is how they won their primaries. Romney appears to be that guy this cycle.

This. Romney doesn't interest me at all.

[Coffee Warlord]

Gingrich is just a boilerplate politician. And I'm sort of surprised he's winning in the polls since he's essentially everything that people supposedly hate about politicians. This is a guy who was going on TV before the 2008 election demanding Obama give back donations from Freddie Mac now that the government had to bail them out when he himself had received millions from them for consulting.

I just don't get it, he's basically what everyone has been hating on over the past decade.

And now that he's the flavor of the month, I'm sure the mass grilling will commence soon. Perry got it, Cain's still getting it, once Cain is eradicated, Newt will get his trial by fire, and drop back down into obscurity.

[ISiddiqui]

This cycle is a bit different as the opponents for Kerry weren't necessarily nuts (and Edwards was a decent enough candidate until we found out what we did this year)

[GrantDawg]

What better, Mormon or Muslim?


For electability? Mormon. A Muslim candidate would sadly pull less than 3% in a national election, no matter the credentials.

[GrantDawg]

And now that he's the flavor of the month, I'm sure the mass grilling will commence soon. Perry got it, Cain's still getting it, once Cain is eradicated, Newt will get his trial by fire, and drop back down into obscurity.


This. Why Romney still will likely become the candidate.

[Ksyrup]

Cain, IMO, was always in this to increase his speaking/book fees and/or get a gig on Fox.

Coming to Fox News in March 2012:

Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann - Cain and Unstable, 7:30pm ET

[lungs]

For electability? Mormon. A Muslim candidate would sadly pull less than 3% in a national election, no matter the credentials.

Huh? We already had a Muslim win a Presidential election.

[GrantDawg]

Huh? We already had a Muslim win a Presidential election.


Thank you, Fox news. :D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Huh? We already had a Muslim win a Presidential election.

This deserves more love, even if it's only been up 45 min. Well done.

[flounder]

Michael Bloomberg declares himself God Emperor of New York (http://www.politickerny.com/2011/11/30/mayor-bloomberg-i-have-my-own-army-11-30-11/).


Mayor Bloomberg’s recent criticism of President Obama for allowing the debt reduction Supercommittee to fail led many political tea leaf watchers to believe he’s eyeing a potential White House bid. To the dismay of those who hope he’ll mount presidential campaign, Mayor Bloomberg began his speech last night by discussing why City Hall is just fine by him.

“I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said.

At first, Mayor Bloomberg sounded he was outlining why three terms as mayor was enough experience in public office for him, but he quickly switched gears and began characterizing City Hall as the perfect preparation for the White House because it allowed him to buck the Beltway establishment get real on-the-ground knowledge.

“I don’t listen to Washington very much, which is something they’re not thrilled about,” Mayor Bloomberg said. “We have every kind of people from every part of the world and every kind of problem.”

[RainMaker]

I don't know if others feel this way, but it seems to me that the past two presidential losers (Kerry and McCain) were the safe, "gives us the best chance in the general election" candidates and that is how they won their primaries. Romney appears to be that guy this cycle.
Moderates win Presidential elections. When was the last time someone from the far left or far right won a Presidential election?

[albionmoonlight]

Moderates win Presidential elections. When was the last time someone from the far left or far right won a Presidential election?

If you listen to the complaints of the losing party, every single election in modern times has been won by a dangerous extremist.

[Logan]

This deserves more love, even if it's only been up 45 min. Well done.

I thought that was a sarcastic quip by SteveMax.

[lungs]

I thought that was a sarcastic quip by SteveMax.

Correct, I was just playing off SteveMax's "What better, Mormon or Muslim?"

[gstelmack]

Moderates win Presidential elections. When was the last time someone from the far left or far right won a Presidential election?

No, candidates who CAMPAIGN AS A MODERATE win elections. Clinton was famous for acting as a moderate during the campaign, then swinging back left once elected. Unless there is complete dead weight on the other side of the aisle, which Bush was a good example of.

Obama may be the first in a while to actually BE a moderate, which is pissing off both sides right now...

[Autumn]

Clinton swung to the left? Not from the perspective of anyone actually on the left.

[JPhillips]

Clinton swung to the left? Not from the perspective of anyone actually on the left.

He did in 1993. His first actions were gays in the military, raising taxes and nationalizing healthcare. After the shellacking in 1994 he tacked to the middle more, but his initial impulses were as far left as Truman.

It's funny to me when those on the right say they could support a moderate Dem like Truman. Domestic policy wise he stood far to the left of anyone that the Dems would nominate today.

[JPhillips]

No, candidates who CAMPAIGN AS A MODERATE win elections. Clinton was famous for acting as a moderate during the campaign, then swinging back left once elected. Unless there is complete dead weight on the other side of the aisle, which Bush was a good example of.

Obama may be the first in a while to actually BE a moderate, which is pissing off both sides right now...

I'd add Bush 1 also.

[panerd]

He did in 1993. His first actions were gays in the military, raising taxes and nationalizing healthcare. After the shellacking in 1994 he tacked to the middle more, but his initial impulses were as far left as Truman.

It's funny to me when those on the right say they could support a moderate Dem like Truman. Domestic policy wise he stood far to the left of anyone that the Dems would nominate today.

What's more amusing is that anyone really on the left actually supports Obama and then justifies it with the age old "lesser of two evils" nonsense. Endless war, Patriot Act, Bush tax cuts, no push at all for single payer health care, bank bailouts, NDAA... yeah that guy really represents liberal values. Truman at least is a hypothetical; Obama is in the office right now.

[GrantDawg]

He did in 1993. His first actions were gays in the military, raising taxes and nationalizing healthcare. After the shellacking in 1994 he tacked to the middle more, but his initial impulses were as far left as Truman.

It's funny to me when those on the right say they could support a moderate Dem like Truman. Domestic policy wise he stood far to the left of anyone that the Dems would nominate today.


No joke. And FDR would make any modern Dem look like a conservative extremist.

[JPhillips]

What's more amusing is that anyone really on the left actually supports Obama and then justifies it with the age old "lesser of two evils" nonsense. Endless war, Patriot Act, Bush tax cuts, no push at all for single payer health care, bank bailouts, NDAA... yeah that guy really represents liberal values. Truman at least is a hypothetical; Obama is in the office right now.

But for me he is the lesser of two evils. I'd love him to be closer to me policy wise, but regardless of who the GOP nominates Obama will be a better choice for me. Sitting out the election or voting for some hypothetical third party candidate will leave me in a worse position.

Who should I vote for that will get me more of what I want?

[larrymcg421]

Wow at this Rasmussen poll. This is not a state poll, but nationwide:

Gingrich 38, Romney 17, Cain 8, Paul 8, Perry 4, Bachmann 4, Santorum 4, Huntsman 3

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow at this Rasmussen poll. This is not a state poll, but nationwide:

Gingrich 38, Romney 17, Cain 8, Paul 8, Perry 4, Bachmann 4, Santorum 4, Huntsman 3

That would be best-case for the GOP. Seal up a nominee early and get busy working over Obama's policies rather than another GOP member.

[JPhillips]

No, the best case scenario would be nominating Huntsman. There's no benefit to quickly picking a loser.

[RainMaker]

He did in 1993. His first actions were gays in the military, raising taxes and nationalizing healthcare. After the shellacking in 1994 he tacked to the middle more, but his initial impulses were as far left as Truman.

It's funny to me when those on the right say they could support a moderate Dem like Truman. Domestic policy wise he stood far to the left of anyone that the Dems would nominate today.

Clinton balanced the budget, dramatically cut welfare, lowered many Federal taxes, removed a ton of regulations, and strongly opposed same-sex marriage (even signed the Defense of Marriage Act).

People can claim he was secretly some far-left guy at heart like Carter (who's Presidency wasn't far-left either despite what we're told), but the facts of his Presidency don't add up to it. There hasn't been a far-left or far-right President in office in some time now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There hasn't been a far-left or far-right President in office in some time now.

It's relative. There's been no shortage of too far left Presidents for some time now.

[SirFozzie]

Jon, to you, any person short of Attila the Hun is too far left, so you're not exactly placing the bar in a realistic position.

[molson]

Who should I vote for that will get me more of what I want?

With the weak Republican field this would seem to be a great opportunity kick Obama to the curb and nominate someone else. That isn't something individually you can do, obviously (but your single vote doesn't make any difference in the general election either).

I know that's not a practical reality anymore for a number of reasons, but it's too bad because its the only antidote to this situation where candidates can lie during their campaign with the comfort of knowing they'll never be called on it at the polls if they win. I think Hillary Clinton was trying to point this out during the primaries - she talked about the obnoxious promises and imagery during at least one of the Democratic debates and how it was all unrealistic. She showed too much honesty there. She could have made all kinds of grand promises too and just blamed Republicans when they don't happen. Because hey, Democrats won't vote for anyone else, and Republicans aren't going to call her out on actions or inaction they agree with (except for Michele Bachmann sometimes, but she gets confused easily.).

[JPhillips]

Clinton balanced the budget, dramatically cut welfare, lowered many Federal taxes, removed a ton of regulations, and strongly opposed same-sex marriage (even signed the Defense of Marriage Act).

People can claim he was secretly some far-left guy at heart like Carter (who's Presidency wasn't far-left either despite what we're told), but the facts of his Presidency don't add up to it. There hasn't been a far-left or far-right President in office in some time now.

All of that was after 1994. He came into office with a pretty liberal agenda.

[RainMaker]

All of that was after 1994. He came into office with a pretty liberal agenda.
So most of his Presidency?

[JPhillips]

The discussion was whether Clinton swung to the left after his election. He did and then moved rightward after 1994 election. Overall his record is quite moderate, but his initial moves were nearly as liberal as LBJ.

[GrantDawg]

The discussion was whether Clinton swung to the left after his election. He did and then moved rightward after 1994 election. Overall his record is quite moderate, but his initial moves were nearly as liberal as LBJ.


Yup. People aren't getting what you are saying, but you are right on this.

[RainMaker]

Clinton ran his Presidential campaign as a centrist. Heck, he was the Governor of a red state. One of the cornerstones of his 1992 campaign was ending welfare dependency. He pushed personal responsibility hard during his speeches. Talked about cutting government employees and streamlining government. About free markets and getting government out of business. His economic policies were more in line with Perot than anyone else.

This notion that Clinton was some kind of far-left candidate is revisionist history. He ran as a centrist/moderate/whatever you want to call it. His "tax increases" were on a small percent of the population. He cut them for many more individuals. Reagan raised taxes on more people than Clinton did. And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

LOL, at least that particular liberal lie is good for a laugh.

[RainMaker]

LOL, at least that particular liberal lie is good for a laugh.
Tell me about all the people on the right who want to abolish Medicare.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

Holy Jesus! You serious, Clark?????

[molson]

Clinton ran his Presidential campaign as a centrist. Heck, he was the Governor of a red state. One of the cornerstones of his 1992 campaign was ending welfare dependency. He pushed personal responsibility hard during his speeches. Talked about cutting government employees and streamlining government. About free markets and getting government out of business. His economic policies were more in line with Perot than anyone else.

This notion that Clinton was some kind of far-left candidate is revisionist history. He ran as a centrist/moderate/whatever you want to call it. His "tax increases" were on a small percent of the population. He cut them for many more individuals. Reagan raised taxes on more people than Clinton did. And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

And of course, one of the things that propelled Clinton over Bush was the "no new taxes" compromise fiasco. Moderates killed him for that, and went to Clinton....yes, moderates got angry at a Republican president for his role in raising taxes and supported a Democrat instead. Things were not as black and white back then, and peoples' souls weren't tied to political parties to the same degree as now.

[GrantDawg]

Clinton ran his Presidential campaign as a centrist. Heck, he was the Governor of a red state. One of the cornerstones of his 1992 campaign was ending welfare dependency. He pushed personal responsibility hard during his speeches. Talked about cutting government employees and streamlining government. About free markets and getting government out of business. His economic policies were more in line with Perot than anyone else.

This notion that Clinton was some kind of far-left candidate is revisionist history. He ran as a centrist/moderate/whatever you want to call it. His "tax increases" were on a small percent of the population. He cut them for many more individuals. Reagan raised taxes on more people than Clinton did. And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.


Again, reading comprehension for $200 dollars, Alex. AFTER HIS ELECTION HE SWUNG FAR LEFT. Yes, he ran as a "New Democrat" moderate. Yes, he later returned to that (after his popularity hit the tank, and the 1994 Republican revolution), but JPhillip's point on him running his first two years very, very far to the left is truth.

[molson]

Again, reading comprehension for $200 dollars, Alex. AFTER HIS ELECTION HE SWUNG FAR LEFT. Yes, he ran as a "New Democrat" moderate. Yes, he later returned to that (after his popularity hit the tank, and the 1994 Republican revolution), but JPhillip's point on him running his first two years very, very far to the left is truth.

Ah, I think I missed that too. Maybe that's why voters expected something similar from Obama. I remember, for example, some liberal sentiment that Obama "had" to be anti-gay marriage to get elected, but then he'd let his true super-liberal colors shine post-election. Some Republicans of course, expressed similar concerns, that Obama was some crazy socialist and we wouldn't find out about that until he got the job. Instead its been the opposite. I wonder if Obama will match Clinton's 2 very liberal years out of 8. He has 2 to go.

[GrantDawg]

Ah, I think I missed that too. Maybe that's why voters expected something similar from Obama. I remember, for example, some liberal sentiment that Obama "had" to be anti-gay marriage to get elected, but then he'd let his true super-liberal colors shine post-election. Some Republicans of course, expressed similar concerns, that Obama was some crazy socialist and we wouldn't find out about that until he got the job. Instead its been the opposite. I wonder if Obama will match Clinton's 2 very liberal years out of 8. He has 2 to go.

Possible. Learning from Clinton, he could hold out till re-election, and then push farther left without worrying about having to run again. The problem is, that will be viewed as "screwing the party" for the mid-term elections (because he could go as left as wants to in his last two, but no president gets much done then).

[panerd]

I wonder if Obama will match Clinton's 2 very liberal years out of 8. He has 2 to go.

Big test coming up soon (some would say a test to see if he is a liberal, I would say a test to see if he is an American) Senate just defeated the attempt to remove a provision from the NDAA that US citizens living in the United States can now be held indefinitely without a trial. Obama said before he would veto this if it passed. Will he follow through? One senator (Kelly Ayotte-NH) referred to the United States as a battlefield. Of course this bill will never have any unintended consequences because it only means the bad dirty Muslims and will never ever be used in the future against any other sort of resistance to the military police state in Washington DC.

PS: Rainmaker this is now in the mainstream press. Infowars and other sites have been on this for a while but they are all of course nutcases right? WE ARE AT WAR with a tactic! We must pass this bill to stay safe!

[RainMaker]

Again, reading comprehension for $200 dollars, Alex. AFTER HIS ELECTION HE SWUNG FAR LEFT. Yes, he ran as a "New Democrat" moderate. Yes, he later returned to that (after his popularity hit the tank, and the 1994 Republican revolution), but JPhillip's point on him running his first two years very, very far to the left is truth.

Tell me what he did that was very, very far to the left. It's revisionist history that Republicans use to take credit for prosperity during those years.

[JPhillips]

And of course, one of the things that propelled Clinton over Bush was the "no new taxes" compromise fiasco. Moderates killed him for that, and went to Clinton....yes, moderates got angry at a Republican president for his role in raising taxes and supported a Democrat instead. Things were not as black and white back then, and peoples' souls weren't tied to political parties to the same degree as now.

"It's the economy stupid!"

Bush would have won easily if the economy was better. He might have won if Perot wasn't in the race. Tax increases pissed off his base, but moderates left him because they didn't believe he understood their economic troubles.

It's the exact same reason Obama would be toast if the GOP wasn't full of raving lunatics. If they nominated Huntsman he'd win and probably get a GOP congress. Then they could accomplish some of their wildest dreams, but Huntsman isn't pure enough so they'll nominate a loser and Obama will scrap by narrowly. (Unless Europe blows up and then even Bachman might win.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they nominated Huntsman he'd win

What would be the point in nominating that worthless piece of shit?

At least Obama is honest about being a p.o.s., Huntsman (almost) makes Ron Paul look viable.

[JPhillips]

Tell me what he did that was very, very far to the left. It's revisionist history that Republicans use to take credit for prosperity during those years.

Gays in the military.

Income tax increase.

Nationalized healthcare hearings.

Expanded the EITC.

Family and Medical Leave Act.

I happen to agree with these policies, but moderates saw them as too far left and punished the Dems in 1994.

[JPhillips]

What would be the point in nominating that worthless piece of shit?

At least Obama is honest about being a p.o.s., Huntsman (almost) makes Ron Paul look viable.

Enjoy four more years of Obama.

[panerd]

"It's the economy stupid!"

Bush would have won easily if the economy was better. He might have won if Perot wasn't in the race. Tax increases pissed off his base, but moderates left him because they didn't believe he understood their economic troubles.

It's the exact same reason Obama would be toast if the GOP wasn't full of raving lunatics. If they nominated Huntsman he'd win and probably get a GOP congress. Then they could accomplish some of their wildest dreams, but Huntsman isn't pure enough so they'll nominate a loser and Obama will scrap by narrowly. (Unless Europe blows up and then even Bachman might win.)

So let me get this straight you said earlier that Romney will never win the nomination or election (forget which one) due to being a Mormon but a far less known Mormon politician who is even less conservative will? OK...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Enjoy four more years of Obama.

I've been anticipating that for weeks now. There simply hasn't been anyone worth a damn on the other side gain enough momentum for me to see how there's any other outcome.

It's the whole "generic Republican" thing that does it, if only somebody could find one then the outcome might be different but short of that ... my hopes are pinned almost entirely on doing well enough with Congressional elections to limit the damage although frankly I think there's going to be too many pseudo-cons left in office to even hold out a lot of hope for that either.

[RainMaker]

DADT was a moderate stance. It pissed off those on the left for not going far enough and pissed off those on the right for doing anything. Clintron strongly opposed gay marriage throughout his campaign.

The income tax increase was part of a bill that cut taxes for a lot of people. Raise taxes for 1.2% of people and it's an increase and ignore the 15 million who got a cut.

EITC was increased by Reagan and Bush before Clinton. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan called the EITC "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” To call increasing EITC a far left idea is laughable.

I'll give you the FMLA, although I don't see how that is farther to the left of something like COBRA. And I know everyone laughs at health care being a moderate stance, but I guess they just pretend Medicare is something that doesn't exist. Clinton also signed into law NAFTA before the 1994 elections which wasn't exactly a liberal policy.

If you're going to call those policies far to the left, I'd hate to see where you'd position Reagan and both Bushs on the political map.

[JPhillips]

So let me get this straight you said earlier that Romney will never win the nomination or election (forget which one) due to being a Mormon but a far less known Mormon politician who is even less conservative will? OK...

No, not in this version of the GOP. That's the point. If they weren't so focused on purity they could see they have a very capable candidate ready to beat Obama. But he's not pure so they'll instead pick a loser.

Better to get zero percent of what you want than fifty percent!

[JPhillips]

DADT was a moderate stance. It pissed off those on the left for not going far enough and pissed off those on the right for doing anything. Clintron strongly opposed gay marriage throughout his campaign.

The income tax increase was part of a bill that cut taxes for a lot of people. Raise taxes for 1.2% of people and it's an increase and ignore the 15 million who got a cut.

EITC was increased by Reagan and Bush before Clinton. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan called the EITC "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” To call increasing EITC a far left idea is laughable.

I'll give you the FMLA, although I don't see how that is farther to the left of something like COBRA. And I know everyone laughs at health care being a moderate stance, but I guess they just pretend Medicare is something that doesn't exist. Clinton also signed into law NAFTA before the 1994 elections which wasn't exactly a liberal policy.

If you're going to call those policies far to the left, I'd hate to see where you'd position Reagan and both Bushs on the political map.

It doesn't matter where I see them. What matters is that the country saw them as too far left and Clinton never strayed that far left after the 1994 elections. Right and left aren't objective positions, they change with the mood of the country. In 1994 swing voters decided that Clinton was too far left and he changed his policy goals as a result.

[JPhillips]

fuckin-a triple dola!

Herman Cain acknowledged Thursday that he repeatedly gave Ginger White money to help her with "month-to-month bills and expenses" without telling his wife.

In fact, the embattled presidential candidate said, his wife, Gloria, "did not know that we were friends until she (White) came out with this story." [...]

Cain said that in retrospect he should have told his wife about his friendship with White, "but retrospect doesn't necessarily change what's going on now."

My wife would have a problem with that answer.

[Dutch]

No, not in this version of the GOP. That's the point. If they weren't so focused on purity they could see they have a very capable candidate ready to beat Obama. But he's not pure so they'll instead pick a loser.

Better to get zero percent of what you want than fifty percent!

Drop much bias in your wording much? :)

[ISiddiqui]

Gays in the military.

Income tax increase.

Nationalized healthcare hearings.

Expanded the EITC.

Family and Medical Leave Act.

I happen to agree with these policies, but moderates saw them as too far left and punished the Dems in 1994.

IIRC, Clinton CAMPAIGNED on all of that. So to say he swung too far to the left after the election is total BS.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and lets be honest for a second, Huntsman is MORE CONSERVATIVE than Romney. Heck, he's more conservative than most of the other Republicans running - seriously look at his record as Governor of Utah. Because he believes in evolution and global warming and decided to be Ambassador to China in the Obama Administration (which hasn't changed our China policy from the Bush Administration), he's been branded a liberal. Makes no sense.

[RainMaker]

The 1994 shift also had a lot to do with some incredible marketing by the GOP. It was something that really hadn't been seen before.

Just look how many people they convince that guys like Obama and Clinton are far left for doing the same exact stuff as Republicans who are considered conservative.

[molson]

No, not in this version of the GOP. That's the point. If they weren't so focused on purity they could see they have a very capable candidate ready to beat Obama. But he's not pure so they'll instead pick a loser.

Better to get zero percent of what you want than fifty percent!

Do you think moderates or liberals annoyed with Obama could support a "scary" Mormon? I'd be just as concerned with the Mormon backlash with Democrats and moderates as I would with Republicans.

[JPhillips]

Drop much bias in your wording much? :)

Fair and balanced, baby!

[Dutch]

Fair and balanced, baby!

Whats thay old saying? "If you stare too long into the abyss..."

[JPhillips]

Whats thay old saying? "If you stare too long into the abyss..."

Exactly, the GOP has stared too long into the abyss.

:p

[SirFozzie]

wow, SHARP unemployment drop to 8.6%... If that number continues to drop (ie, is not just a seasonal blip), the GOP job is getting harder and harder.

[GrantDawg]

wow, SHARP unemployment drop to 8.6%... If that number continues to drop (ie, is not just a seasonal blip), the GOP job is getting harder and harder.


Wow. That is a big drop. Of course, Christmas hiring and all, but if it lasts...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow. That is a big drop. Of course, Christmas hiring and all, but if it lasts...

More influential than the seasonal hiring (which seems to account for a good bit of it) is the little mentioned detail that 315,000 people were no longer counted in the unemployment stats because they stopped looking for work. That's 3/4ths of the net "improvement".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More influential than the seasonal hiring (which seems to account for a good bit of it) is the little mentioned detail that 315,000 people were no longer counted in the unemployment stats because they stopped looking for work. That's 3/4ths of the net "improvement".

Yeah, anyone who starts talking about any drops should look there first before assuming it actually dropped. Between the seasonal hires (which will go away in mid-January) and the people who gave up looking for a job, I'd be very surprised if there was a net gain of any substance.

I get 1-2 resumes a day in my e-mail from people who have stopped looking for a regular job and are looking for part-time work. Unfortunately, my part-time hires are in the summer not the winter, so I've got the "unfortunately, we don't have any openings right now" response on auto-copy on my computer.

[JPhillips]

Why don't all these lazy people just go get jobs?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why don't all these lazy people just go get jobs?

We don't have a job shortage, we have a population surplus.

[larrymcg421]

Of course, it's the largest October-November drop in unemployment since 1961, but sure let's just chalk it up to seasonal hiring. In fact, unemployment in this period increases as often as it decreases. It increased last year and four separate times during Bush's presidency. Also, the 8.6% is only .1% higher than Reagan's at the same point in his presidency (when unemployment dropped .3 over the October-November period).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Of course, it's the largest October-November drop in unemployment since 1961, but sure let's just chalk it up to seasonal hiring. In fact, unemployment in this period increases as often as it decreases. It increased last year and four separate times during Bush's presidency. Also, the 8.6% is only .1% higher than Reagan's at the same point in his presidency (when unemployment dropped .3 over the October-November period).

It's Bush's fault. And Reagan's.

[JPhillips]

Sounds like Cain is out.

NBC News reports Cain is making a "major announcement" about his campaign on Saturday in Georgia, just a day after he headed home to Atlanta to meet with his wife in person following allegations that he had a 13-year affair with a woman.

[larrymcg421]

Sounds like Cain is out.

And Gingrich's lead is about to increase.

[SirFozzie]

another interesting thing is how they keep revising the jobs report from previous months upwards, significantly in fact (think they revised the last two months up 72,000 jobs). Of course, this has all the conspiracy theorists and haters (who make up 99% of all message board posters on yahoo and elsewhere these days) claiming that the numbers are imaginary, that Obama is trying to artificially make the number go down, yadda yadda yadda. Although I do agree at least with one part.. if you're missing the number by THAT much, month after month.. shouldn't you come up with a better way to come up with the number?

[sabotai]

Of course, this has all the conspiracy theorists and haters (who make up 99% of all message board posters on yahoo and elsewhere these days) claiming that the numbers are imaginary

I bet those 315,000 people who stopped looking for work are all liberals who stopped just so that the unemployment number would look better for Obama!!! In fact, I bet just as many unemployed liberal hippies "stop looking" for work every month until the election so that the unemployment number looks better than it really is so that he can get reelected!!!!!

[JPhillips]

another interesting thing is how they keep revising the jobs report from previous months upwards, significantly in fact (think they revised the last two months up 72,000 jobs). Of course, this has all the conspiracy theorists and haters (who make up 99% of all message board posters on yahoo and elsewhere these days) claiming that the numbers are imaginary, that Obama is trying to artificially make the number go down, yadda yadda yadda. Although I do agree at least with one part.. if you're missing the number by THAT much, month after month.. shouldn't you come up with a better way to come up with the number?

During 2009-2010 it seemed like every announcement included downward revisions of the previous month. I expect it's just damn difficult to get the data quickly enough and the early projections need to be updated when more data comes in. If they waited six months before announcing an unemployment number I bet the revisions wouldn't be necessary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cain to announce decision in Atlanta Saturday *| ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-to-announce-decision-1249097.html)

I have to admit, I'm surprised by how little has been made of the irony of Cain being replaced as the front-runner by the one guy who has an even worse (extra) marital history.

Cain had already lost me way before any of the allegations so it's not exactly a big deal for me either way, but I'm still surprised that hasn't been THE drumbeat of the aftermath.

[Passacaglia]

Cain to announce decision in Atlanta Saturday *| ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/cain-to-announce-decision-1249097.html)

I have to admit, I'm surprised by how little has been made of the irony of Cain being replaced as the front-runner by the one guy who has an even worse (extra) marital history.

Cain had already lost me way before any of the allegations so it's not exactly a big deal for me either way, but I'm still surprised that hasn't been THE drumbeat of the aftermath.

You mean you didn't see them mention that on The Daily Show?!?

[JonInMiddleGA]

You mean you didn't see them mention that on The Daily Show?!?

Gosh, I must have missed that one. Can't imagine how that could have happened ;)

[flounder]

This (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/trump-to-moderate-republican-debate/) is a joke, right?


It’s officially a reality television Republican primary now.

Donald Trump is pairing up with Newsmax, the conservative magazine and news Web site, to moderate a presidential debate in Des Moines on Dec. 27.