2012 Presidential Campaign

[flounder]

Michael Bloomberg declares himself God Emperor of New York.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

I thought that was a sarcastic quip by SteveMax.

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

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And nationalized healthcare is a pretty moderate stance.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

"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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Drop much bias in your wording much?

Fair and balanced, baby!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Fair and balanced, baby!

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