2012 Presidential Campaign

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That would be extremely equitable

Fixed that for you.

[GrantDawg]

Left field kind of thing here, but:

How many people are interested in the GWB interview tonight on National Geographic channel on the blow-by-blow of his actions on 9/11? And on the political front, is this an attempt to boost his image and improve is ex-president approval? He still has a low-40's approval ranking (which is higher than his final days in office, but not by much). Most former presidents have bigger bumps this long out of office, so I wonder if he is beginning to be concerned of how bad his legacy is going to be.

To tie this back to current politics, how much does Rick Perry hope for a GWB popularity bump? From what I hear, the Bush people actually hates Perry and vis-versa. But there is no doubt we are going to see ads of Perry morphing into Bush come election time. There are many parallels between the two men (starting with being Texas governors, but not ending there), that a low Bush popularity rating is only going to hurt Perry.

[albionmoonlight]

One of the first things that I learned about Perry is that he and his people don't like Bush and Bush's people and vice versa.

I don't think that it is an accident that that information came out early and often. The GOP is putting that information out there to try and draw the distinction between the two.

[PilotMan]

GWB could suddenly start crapping gold into shoe boxes and I wouldn't give a damn.

[panerd]

Bachmann: Irene is God's message for Washington - Yahoo! News

I hope this funnels some votes Paul's way but knowing how the Republican party works this probably solidified her chances of winning the nomination.

[RainMaker]

He could garner some votes from the people who are against disaster relief and enjoy burying lots of dead bodies because "things were much better back then".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He could garner some votes from the people who are against disaster relief and enjoy burying lots of dead bodies because "things were much better back then".

Yeah but I think most of his followers actually read what he said instead of the soundbytes. Too bad the mass media and their dumbed down messages have gotten to you also. You used to at least seem like you did some independent thinking.

[panerd]

Media Ignoring Ron Paul? - Fox News Video - FoxNews.com


May I suggest watching the first 4 minutes where he very clearly explains his stance of FEMA and also explains that he wants to ween people off these programs and not just take them away. In fact his quote (since you probably won't watch the video) is that Obama could pull a couple billion from Iraq or Afganistan and put half of it towards the deficit and half could fund FEMA for a year. Sounds like a logical solution for a country that is broke.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah but I think most of his followers actually read what he said instead of the soundbytes. Too bad the mass media and their dumbed down messages have gotten to you also. You used to at least seem like you did some independent thinking.

"We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

Paul sees no role for a federal response during natural disasters. To say otherwise is to ignore what Paul has said repeatedly.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Paul sees no role for a federal response during natural disasters. To say otherwise is to ignore what Paul has said repeatedly.

You clearly watched the video I linked that allows him a full explanation without taking bits and pieces of his words and creating soundbytes.

[JPhillips]

I did watch the interview and he said FEMA is a flawed idea because it's "central planning". He doesn't want to reform a wasteful agency, he wants to eliminate it because he believes states should be left on their own during disasters. If they want to form a cooperative they can, but if that cooperative is overwhelmed, too bad.

His position would mean that Gulf coast states are own their own if a big hurricane hits. It takes the United out of United States.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I did watch the interview and he said FEMA is a flawed idea because it's "central planning". He doesn't want to reform a wasteful agency, he wants to eliminate it because he believes states should be left on their own during disasters. If they want to form a cooperative they can, but if that cooperative is overwhelmed, too bad.

His position would mean that Gulf coast states are own their own if a big hurricane hits. It takes the United out of United States.

Well thats not really what he said but I am glad you watched it. I believe his point was that we have no money and that if we stop the war mongering we can have some of these other agencies. Oh and that he has repsesented a Gulf city for 11 terms has some insight on how FEMA works the other 360 days when there isn't a disaster.

[JPhillips]

My problem isn't with a desire to reform an agency, although by bipartisan accounts Fugate has been doing a very good job at FEMA. My problem is that his ideology sees no role for a federal response. He does say he wants to eliminate FEMA gradually, but he is clear that the federal government shouldn't be involved in disaster relief.

I continue to say, that's nuts.

[RainMaker]

His words:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

I live on the Gulf Coast. We put up with hurricanes all the time. In 1900, before FEMA, the local people rebuilt the city, built a seawall, and they survived without FEMA

1900 Galveston hurricane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're going to talk about how people did it better in the old days, it's best not to use the deadliest natural disasters in our nation's history. One where they had so many dead bodies they couldn't bury them. Where people had to put up makeshift tents to survive for months afterwards. One the battered the city so hard financially they never were able to recover to what they once were. It's quite possibly the worst example you could ever give.

FEMA was also around before 1900, although maybe the mass media is responsible for him not knowing that too.


Everytime Paul says something stupid, it's everyone else who "doesn't get it" or "twisted his words".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His words:



1900 Galveston hurricane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're going to talk about how people did it better in the old days, it's best not to use the deadliest natural disasters in our nation's history. One where they had so many dead bodies they couldn't bury them. Where people had to put up makeshift tents to survive for months afterwards. One the battered the city so hard financially they never were able to recover to what they once were. It's quite possibly the worst example you could ever give.

FEMA was also around before 1900, although maybe the mass media is responsible for him not knowing that too.


Everytime Paul says something stupid, it's everyone else who "doesn't get it" or "twisted his words".

I thought Jimmy Carter created FEMA? You learn something new on here everyday!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well thats not really what he said but I am glad you watched it. I believe his point was that we have no money and that if we stop the war mongering we can have some of these other agencies. Oh and that he has repsesented a Gulf city for 11 terms has some insight on how FEMA works the other 360 days when there isn't a disaster.

That's actually exactly what he said. When your guy says something stupid, you can't just say that "everyone doesn't get it" when they basically repeat back his own words.

The problem with this is that it's throwing out something that should be an essential part of the government. Protecting its citizens. I'm sorry, but if there is a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or any other catastrophe, I'm happy to have the federal government step in and help. When a town in Missouri gets flattened by tornadoes, I don't want to look their way, shrug my shoulders and say "welp, I hope that little town can find a way to help those people who are trapped and don't have any food/water to survive on".

[lungs]

Didn't Bush put some incompetent crony in charge of FEMA during Katrina and then then people complain that it is ineffective?

That's kind of a cunning strategy by conservatives. Put incompetent fools in charge of a government agency and then complain how ineffective it is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought Jimmy Carter created FEMA? You learn something new on here everyday!

First paragraph.

FEMA: FEMA History

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought Jimmy Carter created FEMA? You learn something new on here everyday!

FEMA was created by Carter, but the role of FEMA existed in dozens of far-flung government agencies in many different departments. The executive order creating FEMA was a way to consolidate disaster recovery agencies into one body.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

First paragraph.

FEMA: FEMA History

Sure and George Washington created the first department of homeland security!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

FEMA was created by Carter, but the role of FEMA existed in dozens of far-flung government agencies in many different departments. The executive order creating FEMA was a way to consolidate disaster recovery agencies into one body.

Which would go to Paul's point that by centralizing it into a huge bureaucracy it leads to "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" type moments.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Paul sees no role for a federal response during natural disasters. To say otherwise is to ignore what Paul has said repeatedly.

Most states, if not all, have an EMA department. FEMA is supposed to serve as an adjunct to it.

Part of the problems with Katrina was La., had no plan in place. FEMA came in and said what do you need, and their response was "uh...." Mississippi's MEMA had a plan, so when FEMA came in, they gave them their list of what they needed and FEMA helped out. That's part of the reason you never hear of any debacles in Gulfport, Biloxi, etc. They had their crap straight.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Which would go to Paul's point that by centralizing it into a huge bureaucracy it leads to "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie" type moments.

It was already a huge bureaucracy, but with duplications and a lack of communication.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Most states, if not all, have an EMA department. FEMA is supposed to serve as an adjunct to it.

Part of the problems with Katrina was La., had no plan in place. FEMA came in and said what do you need, and their response was "uh...." Mississippi's MEMA had a plan, so when FEMA came in, they gave them their list of what they needed and FEMA helped out. That's part of the reason you never hear of any debacles in Gulfport, Biloxi, etc. They had their crap straight.

But MEMA still needed support, supplies and money from the federal government. I'm fine with states taking the lead in planning, but to eliminate any federal support as Paul wishes will just make natural disasters much worse.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But MEMA still needed support, supplies and money from the federal government. I'm fine with states taking the lead in planning, but to eliminate any federal support as Paul wishes will just make natural disasters much worse.

There's a difference between eliminating FEMA and eliminating all emergency funding in the event of a major disaster. I seriously doubt Paul would object to allocating emergency funding directly to a state in the event of a major disaster. The guy runs his mouth and doesn't elaborate well, but he's not some heartless robot who's going to cackle gleefully while some state goes up in flames.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

There's a difference between eliminating FEMA and eliminating all emergency funding in the event of a major disaster. I seriously doubt Paul would object to allocating emergency funding directly to a state in the event of a major disaster. The guy runs his mouth and doesn't elaborate well, but he's not some heartless robot who's going to cackle gleefully while some state goes up in flames.

I don't think he's a heartless robot, I just think his ideology is blinding him to common sense. When he says,

"We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul told NBC News. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

he certainly sounds like he believes the federal government should have no role in disaster assistance. Until he says there is a role for federal assistance, I'm going to take him at his word.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

There's a difference between eliminating FEMA and eliminating all emergency funding in the event of a major disaster. I seriously doubt Paul would object to allocating emergency funding directly to a state in the event of a major disaster.

I tend to think you're giving him too much credit here.

On the off-chance that you're right though, where would that hypothetical money come from? Does the state EMA just send a wish list to the President & he writes 'em a check?

Rational criticism of FEMA aside for a moment, at some practical level it seems to me that somebody has to handle the part where there's decisions to be made about what to provide the states ...

"A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

If Washington is sending the check, at some point there's got to be somebody is Washington who can determine what's legit, what's overreaching by a state looking to grab what they can, etc. If that isn't FEMA, it still has to be someone under a different name, or else get out of the disaster-assistance business altogether.

My real guess is that the actual answer lies somewhere between babbling idiot & heartless robot, at Paul's frequent address of Batshit Crazy Lane.

[JediKooter]

Bachmann backers to Perry: She's the honest conservative in the race | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Pot meet kettle.

[albionmoonlight]

Debate tonight.

I think that Perry will be declared the winner. The way the chattering classes are talking about "Can Perry handle his first debate on the national stage?" makes me think that if he does anything better than show up dressed as a rodeo cowboy and make repeated nonsensical references to the Back Forty, he will be seen as having "exceeded expectations on the national stage" and "shown that he can appeal to voters outside of Texas."

Nothing like being a front-runner with low expectations. It won't last for him, but he probably has a few more weeks of smooth sailing.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Debate tonight.

I think that Perry will be declared the winner. The way the chattering classes are talking about "Can Perry handle his first debate on the national stage?" makes me think that if he does anything better than show up dressed as a rodeo cowboy and make repeated nonsensical references to the Back Forty, he will be seen as having "exceeded expectations on the national stage" and "shown that he can appeal to voters outside of Texas."

Nothing like being a front-runner with low expectations. It won't last for him, but he probably has a few more weeks of smooth sailing.

The articles are probably already written. All they need to do is fill in the quotes, declare Perry the winner, Romney and Bachmann looking good, ignore everyone else, and also ignore any sort of public opinion polls and feedback to their artciles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

ignore everyone else,

Those would be the only three candidates that matter at this point, why waste much time on the others who remain in the race due to some combination of ego & delusion?

[albionmoonlight]

If I had to handicap the race right now based on nothing but my gut:

Romney: 40% chance of getting nomination
Perry: 30%
Bachmann: 13%
Palin: 12%
Other: 5%

[SteveMax58]

Wow...a sign of true apathy in the world when FOFC has not a single comment related to the GOP debate last night until now.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If I had to handicap the race right now based on nothing but my gut:

Romney: 40% chance of getting nomination
Perry: 30%
Bachmann: 13%
Palin: 12%
Other: 5%

I'd say this is a pretty accurate picture, at least for the top 2 (and possibly 3). I think this is pretty much a Romney/Perry race at this point...and everybody else is just kiiding themselves.

I do find it ironic that this might be the most vulnerable a President has been in years (much worse than GWB in 2004, imho)...and we've seen the weakest turnout of candidates from the opposing party.

I actually have said that nobody would have a shot at beating Obama in 2012 barring a major economic catastrophe. I'm not so sure of that any more. I think there is a growing weariness with this economy & people are sick & tired of being sick & tired. That said...Romney or Perry (which I believe will be Romney ultimately) are still going to have to bring their A-game as it relates to the economy. And I don't think yelling "cut taxes" is going to do it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Wow...a sign of true apathy in the world when FOFC has not a single comment related to the GOP debate last night until now.

Eh, this isn't really a place I think of first when it comes to discussing conservative candidates. There's been no shortage of discussion on several other venues I visit.

Let's be real: how many FOFC'ers are voting in the GOP primary (at least that aren't crossing over just to pick a weak/most liberal candidate). And of those that will, how many don't already have their mind pretty much made up?

I will say that the overwhelming tone of the discussion I've seen elsewhere is along the lines of reinforced support for whichever candidate was the voter's favorite going in & probably at least as much about which candidates have no chance in hell of winning & are just an annoyance at this point.

The debate probably hasn't gotten much talk here because it was more of a pro forma exercise than anything, the most significant thing that could have happened was someone to make a major gaffe. That didn't happen so the discussion is rather limited.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's be real: how many FOFC'ers are voting in the GOP primary (at least that aren't crossing over just to pick a weak/most liberal candidate). And of those that will, how many don't already have their mind pretty much made up?

Very valid points. Just thinking somebody may have opened up Perry's Ponzi scheme argument on SS, or Ron Paul's warning about getting locked in by the border fence.

Overall, no "new news" as you said. And even "new news" wouldn't be very important news in any event. I will be interested to hear Obama's speech tonight...probably would have been more interesting if the GOP debate happened after Obama's speech.

[larrymcg421]

Perry's ponzi scheme comment might be fine in the primary, but is an absolute killer in the general election. He will have to walk that one back before the general or he can just go ahead and move his staff out of Florida.

[RainMaker]

I thought Pawlenty on Colbert hit is spot-on that this was more a reality TV show than anything else. Maybe that's where the apathy here comes from. This board doesn't seem like the "reality TV" type crowd.

For me, it's just so scripted that I can't show too much interest. It feels like an episode of the Kardashians where it plays to the people who actually think what takes place on the show is real life.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Perry's ponzi scheme comment might be fine in the primary, but is an absolute killer in the general election. He will have to walk that one back before the general or he can just go ahead and move his staff out of Florida.

It's sad that it's passable in a primary since it shows that he doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is or how SS works.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's sad that it's passable in a primary since it shows that he doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is or how SS works.

One could argue that social security is worse. First of all to have a "victim" of a ponzi scheme like Madoff's it requires someone choose to get involved in a situation to looks to good to be real. So basically they have chosen to forgo treasury bonds or conservative investments for the big score. So while Madoff and others are definitely creeps it really is hard to feel too bad for their victims,.

Social security on the other hand is not a choice. If you work you get to be a part of this setup even if you don't want to. And if the shit hits the fan there isn't going to be any money. Why? Because the Congress decided to raid the fund to spend it on wars and other programs that the money wasn't intended for. So you are correct that it isn't a Ponzi scheme but in the end does it really matter what we call it? If they keep spending money on everything under the sun from endless war, endless "security", corporate welfare, unemployment... the money one day will actually disappear. And you can say it isn't a ponzi scheme still, fine how about a US Congress scheme?

[Young Drachma]

Comment spammers are already out to rebel against the Presidents plan

Obama Calls for Expansion of the Payroll Tax Cut - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, this isn't really a place I think of first when it comes to discussing conservative candidates. There's been no shortage of discussion on several other venues I visit.

Let's be real: how many FOFC'ers are voting in the GOP primary (at least that aren't crossing over just to pick a weak/most liberal candidate). And of those that will, how many don't already have their mind pretty much made up?

I will say that the overwhelming tone of the discussion I've seen elsewhere is along the lines of reinforced support for whichever candidate was the voter's favorite going in & probably at least as much about which candidates have no chance in hell of winning & are just an annoyance at this point.

The debate probably hasn't gotten much talk here because it was more of a pro forma exercise than anything, the most significant thing that could have happened was someone to make a major gaffe. That didn't happen so the discussion is rather limited.

This is fascinating to me - you think FOFC is severely left-of-center? I'd always thought of FOFC as having a fair number of right-wingers, including a lot of the old crowd.

I'd be curious if we did a poll of "regulars" here, how it might shape up as compared to a Gallup poll on the presidential election. I'd assume a more informed electorate here that might bias away from the Bachmann's of the world, but other than that, probably centrist. Hmm.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

This is fascinating to me - you think FOFC is severely left-of-center? I'd always thought of FOFC as having a fair number of right-wingers, including a lot of the old crowd.

I'd be curious if we did a poll of "regulars" here, how it might shape up as compared to a Gallup poll on the presidential election. I'd assume a more informed electorate here that might bias away from the Bachmann's of the world, but other than that, probably centrist. Hmm.

I think I would tend to agree with Jon's view of the political leanings of the board but perhaps its just the more vocal members happen to be left-leaning.

I thought there was a poll or 2 (perhaps a lot of them) done around last election that backed this up as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

This is fascinating to me - you think FOFC is severely left-of-center? I'd always thought of FOFC as having a fair number of right-wingers, including a lot of the old crowd.

I'd be curious if we did a poll of "regulars" here, how it might shape up as compared to a Gallup poll on the presidential election. I'd assume a more informed electorate here that might bias away from the Bachmann's of the world, but other than that, probably centrist. Hmm.

I think he was talking about these threads which tend to lean towards the left in my opinion also.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think this board leans right compared to the rest of the "internet", left compared to the national average.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Ron Paul.

aka The Guy Who Makes James Stockdale Look Like A Great Choice.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Very valid points. Just thinking somebody may have opened up Perry's Ponzi scheme argument on SS, or Ron Paul's warning about getting locked in by the border fence.

Overall, no "new news" as you said. And even "new news" wouldn't be very important news in any event. I will be interested to hear Obama's speech tonight...probably would have been more interesting if the GOP debate happened after Obama's speech.

I was much more disturbed by Pauls's anti-vaccination stance.

[Passacaglia]

The impression I've had is that people on here who lean left think the board leans right, and people on here who lean right think the board leans left.

[JPhillips]

I don't think the board leans one way or the other. FOFC is probably the most diverse group politically that I've seen on the internets.