# U.S. 2012 Election



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2009)

Well, you heard it here first: Governor Sarah Palin has estabilshed a PAC, which is a pretty conclusive first step in sounding the waters for a Presidential bid.

http://www.sarahpac.com/



> Sarah Palin's Official PAC
> 
> Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jan 2009)

My understanding was that she was an unqualified disaster for the Republican Party - like, yaaa!!!!  Better look somewhere else, GOP.


----------



## Pelorus (28 Jan 2009)

I think the GOP should just let her fade into obscurity, certainly not bring her out again in 2012.  That is, assuming they want to beat the Democrats.

Sure, she was popular with the "base", but she scared the hell out of all the moderates IMO.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2009)

Of course there is also the argument that without Governor Palin, the popular vote would not have been as close as it was (the President was elected with 52% of the popular vote, very similar to George W Bush's margins of victory in 200 and 2004). Being able to see the Governor without the MSM "filter" might prove very illuminating.

Lets let the market work its magic. If Governor Palin can provide the combination of policy and "salesmanship" to re energize the GOP and win the White house, then all power to her. OTOH, there are *many* other politicians who also will be trying to sell themselves and their ideas; may the best person win.


----------



## Mike Baker (28 Jan 2009)

My money is on Ron Paul. ;D


But in all seriousness, does anyone think that Dr. Paul will run in 2012? That people may actually vote for him, or that he would be the 'black horse', and somehow get the GOP Nomination?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2009)

Ross Perot  ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Jan 2009)

> My understanding was that she was an unqualified disaster for the Republican Party - like, yaaa!!!!  Better look somewhere else, GOP.



I keep hearing that, and reading it. But my discussions with voting Americans don't prove it out. Maybe I'm just nestled in the right (no pun intended) demographic, and my friends, relatives, co-workers etc. are too like-minded to provide a representative sample.

Of all the Republicans that I know, work with, talk to on message boards, etc - none of them think she is/was a "disaster"


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jan 2009)

The only one's who think she was a disaster are the hypocrites in the democrat party and the RINO's in the GOP. She IS the only conservative politician that actually excites the folks. Maybe another charismatic pol may appear on the scene but right now she's it. Whether she can draw independents is a big question but right now she's the best of the field. She took everything the democrat controled media threw at her and she didnt implode. You're right if she hadnt been on the ticket McCain would have lost by a wider margin. McCain aimed his campaign at democrats and independents and didnt get enough of those and lost ground with the base. Like 06 people sat the election out.


----------



## GAP (28 Jan 2009)

She might be wise to sit out 2012.....if Obama does anywhere 1/2 decent, he'll get a second term easily.....all he has to do is not declare war on anybody...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jan 2009)

2010 will be the first referendum on the Obama administration. If the dem's lose one or both houses of Congress it will be bad news for Obama. If they retain control Obama will be good til 2012. I think the economy will sink Obama, his initiatives right now are not conducive for a recovery.With another Trillion dollars sloshing about the economy I am thinking 70's style inflation will hit by 2010. Another factor is the banking system.The first stimulus went to the banks,what if that doesnt work ? Where will the money come from for more money for the banks ? Print more ?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2009)

How you see governor Palin is probably a good indication of where you are on the politcal spectrum, rather than where she stands:

http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/01/28/sarah-palin-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/



> *Sarah Palin in the eye of the beholder*
> 
> Posted by Josh Painter (Profile)
> 
> ...


----------



## Drag (29 Jan 2009)

IF I was a Democratic PAC I would not have to go any farther than Youtube to sink her.  Imagine the radio prank with the Quebec DJs on the air...  Run her all you want, this should be amusing.  Bobby Jindal on the other hand has what it takes


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jan 2009)

D3 said:
			
		

> IF I was a Democratic PAC I would not have to go any farther than Youtube to sink her.  Imagine the radio prank with the Quebec DJs on the air...



Then why is Nickolas Sarkozy still President of France??


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2009)

Palin should have been given a national platform and exposure in 2008; brought to the Senate for greater breadth of experience, then run as part of a ticket in 2012.

What some pundits ignore is that you don't need a polarizing figure who only attracts your base - to win, youi need to appeal to the central, undecided voter.  News flash:  despite popular mythology, the US is a largerly urban society.  Sarah's appeal was primarily to core rural Republican voters - who weren't going to vote Democrat under any conditions.

Urban voters saw a small town, white trash family with a knocked-up teenage daughter and her redneck high-school drop-out boyfriend.  Not inspirational.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Jan 2009)

> News flash:  despite popular mythology, the US is a largerly urban society.  Sarah's appeal was primarily to core rural Republican voters - who weren't going to vote Democrat under any conditions.
> 
> Urban voters saw a small town, white trash family with a knocked-up teenage daughter and her redneck high-school drop-out boyfriend.  Not inspirational.



I agree with your reasoning but see my comments above. My _personal _ experience doesn't prove that out - and I live/work in one of the largest cities in the US.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jan 2009)

White trash ? Give me a break !


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2009)

From Wikipedia:



> White trash is a term referring to lower social class white people with poor prospects and/or low levels of education. It originated as a pejorative. To call someone white trash was to accuse a white person of being economically, educationally and/or culturally bankrupt.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

A pregnant seventeen year-old daughter, with an eighteen year old self-declared f---in' redneck, high-school dropout boyfriend (whose mother gets arrested for selling OxyContin) would qualify in most circles as white trash.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jan 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From Wikipedia:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash
> 
> A pregnant seventeen year-old daughter, with an eighteen year old self-declared f---in' redneck, high-school dropout boyfriend (whose mother gets arrested for selling OxyContin) would qualify in most circles as white trash.



If ever I saw a suck-back opportunity......

I trust that you are talking about the community's perception of Sarah Palin and not your own.


----------



## GAP (30 Jan 2009)

Gee, I guess that makes me and mine white trash too......son of a gun, who woulda thought that a couple kids playing around too early to lead to such a dismal end for us all................................


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jan 2009)

Pretty arrogant remark and one that offends me. Kids having kids isnt unique to folks who live in small towns, but is just as common at all levels of society:rich,poor and middle class. Had Palin been a democrat she would have been given rock star treatment. Alot of hypocrisy amongst our libs. Last week the democrat Mayor of Portland lied about having sex with an 18 year old male intern. No calls for him to resign among the MSM like the Republican Congressman in 06 that had inappropriate emails with a House page.

http://www.katu.com/news/37848109.html


----------



## ltmaverick25 (31 Jan 2009)

Dont feel so bad, there is alot of hypocricy with our libs too.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Jan 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From Wikipedia:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash
> 
> A pregnant seventeen year-old daughter, with an eighteen year old self-declared f---in' redneck, high-school dropout boyfriend (whose mother gets arrested for selling OxyContin) would qualify in most circles as white trash.



Actually, the Palin's would not qualify 'as white trash."  According to the link you provided "white trash" refers to, "_*lower social class white people with poor prospects and/or low levels of education*. ... To call someone white trash was to accuse a *white person of being economically, educationally and/or culturally bankrupt.*"_ (My emphasis)

Whatever you may think about the Sarah Palin and her family, they, most assuredly, do not fall into any of the above categories.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2009)

Now that everyone has exposed their political and idiological bias through their reaction to Governor Palin, here is one of the "Uber issues" that needs to be discussed and debated by politicians of all stripes leading up to 2012. The Democrat Party has already indicated by word and deed their aim is the expansion of State power and politicization of the economy, anyone arguing the opposite needs to start here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233381066



> *Why the Size of Government Matters*:
> 
> In his inaugural address, President Obama said that "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." This is a commonly heard argument in response to concerns about the growth of government. Who could possibly be against government when it "works"? Why not instead consider each proposed expansion of the state on a case by case basis, supporting those that "work" and opposing any that don't?
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jan 2009)

The democrat controlled Congress is working on a bill that would crush any car/SUV that doesnt get better than 18mph. Big government on the move and will only get worse.

http://www.sema.org/Main/Artic...aspx?contentID=61134


----------



## CougarKing (19 Feb 2009)

If Palin wants to seriously consider running again, she has to get this cleared up first. And no, this allegation doesn't mean she was previously tapped for Obama' s cabinet like those other nominated officials. ;D

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693695.html



> *Palin owes tax on per diem, state says
> EXPENSES: Governor received meal money while living in Wasilla.*
> 
> By LISA DEMER
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2009)

A look at some of the potential lights in the upcoming election cycle (although President Obama is already in campaign mode). One of the other people to watch is S Carolina Governor Mark Sanford:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/01/limbaugh-steals-cpac-spotlight/



> [/b]Limbaugh steals CPAC spotlight*
> Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
> Sunday, March 1, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (16 Mar 2009)

> *THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General [David] Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.
> 
> Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.*
> 
> ...



http://themoderatevoice.com/27139/from-general-to-president/

Will he be the surprise contender?  Follow in the footsteps of Eisenhower or Grant?


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Mar 2009)

Story isnt true.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2009)

It is much easier to win the election if you can just make up your own congressional districts and electoral college votes...

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-idea-lets-involve-acorn-in-census.html



> *Great Idea! Let's Involve ACORN in the Census*
> 
> What could possibly go wrong with a criminal enterprise involved in the 2010 census?
> The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.
> ...


----------



## Yrys (24 Mar 2009)

It’s Never to Soon to Think About 2012

President Obama has been in the White House for only two months and three days, but his strategists 
at the Democratic National Committee are already looking ahead to 2012.

Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, the chairman of the D.N.C., announced Monday evening the formation of 
a 37-member commission to study the party’s primary and caucus calendar for the next election. It 
may seem like a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama will be the party’s nominee, but (to borrow a 
cliché) three years is a political eternity, so Democratic leaders are setting up a system to get 
ready for 2012.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina will lead 
the Democratic Change Commission, which is scheduled to report its findings no later than Jan. 1, 
2010. The commission, which is largely comprised of Democrats who supported Mr. Obama (and 
a few who backed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in last year’s contentious primary season), will 
review and streamline the 2008 calendar.

“This commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process,” Mr. Kane 
said in a statement, “to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate.”


In announcing the commission, Mr. Kaine outlined three goals: changing the window for primaries and
caucuses, reducing the number of superdelegates and improving the caucus system. As an insurgent 
candidate, Mr. Obama benefited from the rules in the 2008 campaign, but also was an eyewitness to 
the pitfalls of the process.

The nominating contest begins earlier and earlier most every presidential election cycle. Next time, 
party leaders say, the primaries and caucuses will start no sooner than Feb. 1, which is a month later
than the 2008 race. The Democratic rules, of course, are subject to change, which is how the 
extraordinarily front-loaded system came about last year.

David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama, is among the members of the commission. The
early states from 2008 also have representatives in the group, including Iowa, New Hampshire, South
Carolina and Nevada, along with a cadre of familiar names from Democratic circles as well as new 
faces.

If everything goes as planned – in the eyes of the White House – Mr. Obama will sail through the 
Democratic primaries to be at full strength for the general election with a yet-to-be-identified 
Republican. Set your watches: the 2012 games will begin in less than three years.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2009)

The emporor has no coattails, good one!

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/04/wonderful-ny-20-race-dead-heat-waiting.html



> *Wonderful! NY-20 Race a Dead Heat, Waiting on Absentee Ballots and Likely Headed for Recount*
> 
> It doesn't get much closer than this.
> Scott Murphy (D): 77,344 - 50%
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2009)

Here is a theme for the election (and we have four years to drive it home):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2009)

If the Republicans don't shape up (and especially if a high profile leader with clearly conservative credentials and views fails to step up); then a third party movement might ignite. It should be interesting to see who is on the bandwagon April 15:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/04/politics-and-the-tea-party-movement.html



> *Politics And The Tea Party Movement*
> 
> The collision of the Tea Party movement and politics was always inevitable. It seems to be gaining some steam. Even Senators now have a chance to weigh in given this resolution.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2009)

Not much time for the congressional mid terms and the 2012 election to remake the party, but then again the "Radical Republicans" replaced the Whig party with incredible speed in the mid 1800's (President Lincoln started his political career as a Whig, then became one of the driving forces behind the creation and growth of the Republican Party). So the question is, can a "third party" gain enough momentum to become a viable player, (Libertarians or New Whigs), or can the Republican Party remake itself with new talent and new voices?

http://rasmussenreports.getmobile.com/site?t=hdtF0ElC1KIfy0VKQdh2Xw&sid=rassenreports-feblzqlu&tcid=QWCc120b0f7908b4ba6ada0ee01b68d16d3



> *Is The Beltway GOP Irrelevant?*
> An Analysis By Scott Rasmussen
> 
> To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation's capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Apr 2009)

Any third party would have to get alot of existing members of Congress to switch to have any immediate effect. This is why the existing Republican Party has to be the vehicle for a new evolution. If the party is to be relevant it needs to become the conservative party. People that dont agree with conservative principles can be democrats which may not seem attractive as increasingly ,it is becoming the party of karl marx.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2009)

While I agree in practical terms that is probably the most probable route T6, I should also point out that the Whigs, the Federalists (or for Canadians) the Progressives (or for Britons) the Liberal Unionists and many other political parties never conceived of how far or fast they would fall, despite their impressive histories, organizations and "name brand" recognition.

In the mean time, we have this to look forward to. We can already see the digging in process as the Progressives try to cement their hold on power with such tactics as re imposing the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and the Internet, using ACORN to skew census data for reallocation of congressional districts and gathering more economic power in order to limit the options of all Americans:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/relax-dems-will-screw-up.html



> *Relax, The Dems Will Screw Up*
> 
> It would be very easy to fall into a depression over Arlen Specter switching political parties, giving Democrats a likely filibuster-proof Senate majority. The result will be that Obama will be able to push through much of his agenda without meaningful debate.
> 
> ...



_ Edit to update with link and article_


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Apr 2009)

Alot of ways to mess things up for the average American. So far Obama has been able to avoid being linked  to his administrations failures. In response to poll questions americans hate his policies but like the man. At some point though that cannot continue. The policies will become too onerous to ignore. The good aspect of Arlen going back to becoming a democrat the dem's cannot blame the republicans for being obstructionists as they will have at least 60 seats [more like 61 when Franken is sworn in] and there could be more moderate Rrepublicans switching parties as well.


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2009)

The New York flyover has results.....

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/campaigns/rich-businessman-sinks-bucks-into-attacking-obama-over-flyover-snafu/



> *Rich Businessman Sinks Bucks Into Attacking Obama Over Flyover Snafu*
> 
> A wealthy Obama donor who turned on the president is launching an attack on Obama over the Air Force One flyover screw-up, linking it to his big spending policies, an assault that may involve radio and TV ads in a preview of what to expect in the 2010 midterm elections.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jul 2009)

Sarah Palin resigns from her governor's position, though the question now on everyone's mind is whether this will improve her chances for a political future at higher positions, like the oval office, if at all.

ABC News link


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2009)

Jerry Pournelle on Sarah Palin:





> The other major news is Sarah Palin's decision to get the hell out before the politicians destroy her. There's a lot of speculation about whether she intends to run for President in 2012. I think that the probability of success now that she has resigned as governor is so small as to make it exceedingly unlikely.
> 
> She's broke, she can't raise money to pay off her legal bills and still be independent of lobbyists, David Leatherman can joke about her daughter getting knocked up at a baseball game, there is no hint that the "ethics investigations" which require expensive legal defense will cease, and as far as I can see she's just tired of the whole thing. She has the ability to draw crowds and she has a natural instinct for doing the right thing. She's not an Ivy League graduate. She's not an intellectual but she's smart enough to learn about issues. When people do look at her they try to compare her to Ronald Reagan, which is perhaps unfair at this stage of her career. It would make more sense to compare her to Joe Biden. They ran for the same office.
> 
> ...



I suspect that this will only encourage hordes of Progressive "Brownshirts" to go after other politicians and anyone who show the ability or courage to make their opinions known and organize others. Don't think we are immune either (and we have *official organs of the state* like the CHRC, CRTC and CBC to ensure only the "right" voices get heard and others are silenced....)


----------



## CougarKing (21 Jul 2009)

Yet another update for Sarah Palin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_ethics_complaint



> AP NewsBreak:* Palin implicated in ethics probe*
> Rachel D'oro, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska – *An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jul 2009)

I will bet that Chapman is a democrat. So far Palin has been cleared in 17/17 so called ethics complaints. It takes money to defend each complaint and evidently the State doesnt cover that cost. How is a politician to pay for their legal defense if not with donations ?


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jul 2009)

From Palin's Attorney:


> "The resolution of the Trust Fund is not final. I have been working with the investigator regarding supplemental information. The matter is still pending. Whatever you have seen was released in violation of law. There has been no Board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution."
> 
> Thomas Van Flein
> Private Attorney for Sarah Palin



From her spokesperson:


> I cannot verify the validity of this claim. There is no final report. The Investigator is still confidentially reviewing this matter. It appears suspect that in the final days of the Governor's term, someone would again violate the law and announce a supposed conclusion before it is reached.
> 
> Meghan Stapleton
> Palin Spokesperson


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jul 2009)

And from Gov Palin:



> Statement from Sarah Palin on Legal Fund News Report
> Share
> Yesterday at 10:46pm
> "I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me. Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2009)

Despite the fact that President Obama’s popularity is falling like a stone, I do not think the Republicans are, in any meaningful way, ready for 2010 or 2012.

The party is adrift, in the hands of real *conservatives* – statists and collectivists who want to use the power of big government to interfere with the lives and liberties of individuals. Conservatives of this sort – including e.g. the Rush Limbaugh and _religious right_ wings – are dangerous to freedom and liberty and, until they are wrung out of the Republican Party and consigned to the dung heap of political history, where they belong, no thinking American will vote for the GOP.

The Republicans need to leave big government, big labour and the big banks to the Democrats and return to their _natural_ base: the small town, small business, fiscally prudent individuals who are, correctly, described as *liberals*.

Sarah Palin has no place in the Republican Party America, and the whole world, needs. Tom Ridge, amongst many, many others, does, and maybe the reason he is sitting out the 2010 senate race is to begin his campaign for the presidency in 2012. One can hope, anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2009)

Here is a meme which, if properly played, could cause immense damage to sitting congresscritters and senators. A similar scandal in the UK has pretty much destroyed "New Labour" as an effective political party in the near term (and there are elections looming), so the "Per Diem" scandal could be good news for people hoping to derail the Democrat majority in the 2010 mid terms and perhaps clean house by 2012.

Since the current President was a very recently sitting senator, it is conceivable that he can be painted by the same brush (and attempts by his handlers and the MSM to deflect or ignore such questions, regardless of the truth of the matter will only give the appearance of a cover up)

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/12/members-of-congress-get-rich-on-travel-through-huge-per-diems/



> *Members of Congress get rich on travel through huge per diems*
> POSTED AT 10:11 AM ON AUGUST 12, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY
> SHARE ON FACEBOOK |	 PRINTER-FRIENDLY
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Aug 2009)

Voter anger will spill over in 2010 and alot of these democrats in congress will be looking for honest work. The Republicans paid for their sins in 2006 when they lost 80 seats in the House,the same will happen to the dems.


----------



## GAP (12 Aug 2009)

I can see some minor stirrings for the 2012 election (think 2011 start date), the Dems will take moderate hits, lose the majority in the senate, but retain it in the congress.....Once Obama becomes a lame duck, all bets are off depending on how bad things are screwed up...

my


----------



## Long in the tooth (13 Aug 2009)

$3000 for TD... wow... just like the CF!  Had a Col claim $35 for dinner when he got home at 1800.  Asked if he actually purchased dinner... he said no, but he was entitled to it...

Glad I'm retired, but it'll take years of therapy.


----------



## CANADIAN F0RCES (13 Aug 2009)

Had I been born in the USA, I'd of voted for RON PAUL.
He is the only common sense candidate out there. He had an unfair advantage in regards to Americas's 'crazed papparazzi' style coverage of Obama(who hasn't shown any solid movement forward or done anything good) and McCain(who could possible die at any given moment)


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Aug 2009)

Ron Paul is more like a John Bircher, at least thats who he invited to speak to "his" convention in Minnesota.


----------



## CANADIAN F0RCES (15 Aug 2009)

I've never heard of him so I'll do some research, but is it a bad thing to compare Dr.Paul to Birch or no not really?


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Aug 2009)

These are the principles of the John Birch Society. Sounds pretty good. A conservative organization. In reality they have morphed into a tin foil hat society much like Ron Paul himself.



> To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.





> Believes and works to expose a semi-secret international cabal whose members sit in the highest places of influence and power worldwide.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2009)

Given the impressive way the Democrats in the Congress and Administration have been fumbling, add the "culture of corruption meme" (see the post on "Per Diems", above) and non partisan voter anger (T.E.A. parties shun all politicians) and an interesting situation is brewing. While the article may be right in predicting a big turnaround for the GOP, I suspect it would be a case of voting for the "least worst" choice rather than a heartfelt embrace.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/GOP-thinks-the-unthinkable-Victory-in-2010-8103193-53174842.html



> *GOP thinks the unthinkable: Victory in 2010*
> By: Byron York
> Chief Political Correspondent
> August 14, 2009
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2009)

More on the rocky shoals that the Obama administration is floundering upon:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/08/obama_misreads_his_mandate_1.html



> *Obama Misread His Mandate*
> 
> After a rough week for health care reform, Democratic leaders appear to be pulling back on their demand for a public option. It remains to be seen whether liberal Democrats, especially in the House where they are more numerous, will go along with this. But this is still a step in the right direction to get something passed this year.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 Sep 2009)

Dethroned Miss California Carrie Prejean as the running mate of Sarah Palin if Palin gets the 2012 nomination?

 :-\

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/miss-california-wows-conservatives.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2009)

Miss California is not old enough to be Vice President,you have to be at least 40.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2009)

Actually, you only need to fulfill the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility



> Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of President. A President must:
> 
> * be a natural born citizen of the United States;[6]
> * be at least thirty-five years old;
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Sep 2009)

Such a short trip probably meant she didn't have time to shop at Causeway Bay.  ;D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/22/palin.hongkong/index.html?eref=ib_topstories



> Palin speech to Hong Kong investors divides opinions
> Story Highlights
> Sarah Palin to speak before about 1,000 investors at conference in Hong Kong
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Such a short trip probably meant she didn't have time to shop at Causeway Bay.  ;D
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/22/palin.hongkong/index.html?eref=ib_topstories




A bit about the organization that invited her, here.

My guess: she needs money; CLSA pay their "keynote speakers;" she's a _celebrity_; _celebrities_ "sell" more tickets than do smart people.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2009)

A look at some possible election memes:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-2012-presidential-race-on-your-mark-get-set-go/



> *The 2012 Presidential Race: On Your Mark, Get Set, Go!*
> 
> Posted By Jennifer Rubin On September 27, 2009 @ 12:02 am In Opinion, Politics, US News | 118 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Sep 2009)

> Competency matters and executive leadership skills which go beyond speechifying make all the difference between failure and success.



She could have been talking about Ignatieff here as well!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2009)

More memes that will dhape the 2010 and 2012 elections:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/change-and-hope/



> *Change and Hope*
> 
> Posted By Victor Davis Hanson On October 2, 2009 @ 6:54 pm In Uncategorized | 143 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (17 Oct 2009)

I wonder what T6 thinks of this?



> "Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new Rasmussen poll released today is a departure from previous polls showing a close three-way race for the Republican nomination to challenge pro-abortion President Barack Obama in 2012. *The survey shows pro-life former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with a clear lead."*
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/nat5573.html


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2009)

Mike Huckabee is way out there.....I wouldn't put too much credibility to him becoming president....


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Oct 2009)

Romney wont be a very attractive candidate because Romneycare is an expensive flop,a small version of what awaits the nation when Obamacare is enacted. National healthcare is a disaster,the only good thing is that the taxes kick in immediately but the healthcare wont start until 2013,so if the republicans or some third party can win both houses of Congress and the presidency then Obamacare can be killed.

Huckaby would be the candidate of choice for the democrats as they could pound him for being a religious nutcase. After this radical administration I think the public will want a conservative. The republican party is stuck on moderation which is socialism lite IMO. The conservatives will have to do a thorough house cleaning to gain control.

Palin definitely can get people out to a rally but I am not sure that she can win. I like Texas Governor Rick Perry,but 2012 is a long way off. I will say that if the republicans want to elect their own candidate they need to close their primary to everyone but republicans.Otherwise you will have democrats and independents voting which isnt the purpose of the primary.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2009)

Unless there is something sublimely in the background the Republicans are not going to do diddly in 2012...Palin or any others are not going to be enough to overcome Obama for a second term....he's a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Oct 2009)

2010 will be an indication of the trouble Obama will be in. Already the democrats are looking to lose 2 special elections, the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Healthcrae is a huge hot button issue and the democrats are going to push it through despite what the public wants. There are stiff taxes tied to this measure and the kicker is that healthcare coverage wont start for 4 years after passage. This is just the beginning. If cap and trade kick in energy costs for the end user will increase.Throw in a VAT to make up for the loss in revenue from income tax [people not working] and a jobless recovery [or depression] and you will have alot of voter discontent.The voters vote their pocketbooks and its not looking good for the democrats. Nor has the trillions in spending done anything positive for the economy. The dollar is decreasing in value just look at gold prices [buy gold its the best hedge right now]. Inflation has to kick in with all the money thats being printed and that acts like another tax. Better take off those rose tinted glasses Gap.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 2010 will be an indication of the trouble Obama will be in. Already the democrats are looking to lose 2 special elections, the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Healthcrae is a huge hot button issue and the democrats are going to push it through despite what the public wants. There are stiff taxes tied to this measure and the kicker is that healthcare coverage wont start for 4 years after passage. This is just the beginning. If cap and trade kick in energy costs for the end user will increase.Throw in a VAT to make up for the loss in revenue from income tax [people not working] and a jobless recovery [or depression] and you will have alot of voter discontent.The voters vote their pocketbooks and its not looking good for the democrats. Nor has the trillions in spending done anything positive for the economy. The dollar is decreasing in value just look at gold prices [buy gold its the best hedge right now]. Inflation has to kick in with all the money thats being printed and that acts like another tax. Better take off those rose tinted glasses Gap.



Actually I'm in perfect agreement with your points, I just can't for the life of me see any credible Republican accomplishing much in 2012 to overcome Obamamania (and contrary to talking points, it's alive and well). The Republicans are going to need a personality that can divert the voters' attention....right now there's nobody...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2009)

Is Obamamaia really alive and well?  Or is the disconnect between the antipathy to his policies and the apparent lack of antipathy to the man due to the reluctance of "liberal-minded" individuals to admit to pollsters that they don't really like the man for fear of being thought racist?

I wouldn't want to be betting the farm on Obama polls these days.

A Fox poll (cue the chuckling) asked if people would vote for Obama again if they had a do-over on last year's elections.  43% would vote for Obama again.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2009)

People voted for their dream....they won't let go easily...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> People voted for their dream....they won't let go easily...



That's an absolute truth....and a source of worry.  If Obama's core support ends up lacking enough moderate support to take the next election, what will be their reaction?

As you say, they voted their dream and they won't let go easily....but the key to a successful democracy is a population that accepts the peaceful transition from "us" to "them".

On the other hand, I do agree with you regarding the Republicans.  There's nobody jumping out of the woodwork yet and the "Republicans" themselves are still having difficulty figuring out what their message should be.  Huckabee, Romney and Palin would all be bad choices.

For my money I think they might do well with someone that DOESN"T have a personality, DOESN'T have a plan, but just promises Good Governance.... but maybe that's the Canadian in me. ;D


----------



## CougarKing (23 Oct 2009)

> _"A collection of essays about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, titled Going Rouge, will be released the same day as Palin's own much-awaited book, Going Rogue.
> 
> The essays, collected by The Nation senior editors Richard Kim and Betsy Reed and written by Max Blumenthal, Katha Pollitt, Matt Taibbi and several others, will examine "the nightmarish prospect of her continuing to dominate the nation's political scene." " _



Imagine the confusion when her fans buy the wrong book.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Oct 2009)

I enjoy reading Sowell's articles as they are well thought out and thought provoking.

Dismantling America
By Thomas Sowell

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2009)

The Democrats will have to sweep all 57 states to overcome this movement!

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/11/20/bosse-enters-race-for-gop-nod-in-new-hampshire%E2%80%99s-satirical-00th-district/



> *Bosse enters race for GOP nod in New Hampshire’s satirical 00th district*
> 
> November 20, 2009 by Patrick
> Filed under News & Politics
> ...



While serious in intent, I think he has found the fatal weakness of the O-Bots, Dems and Progressives in general: they have no sense of humor and have no defense against people laughing at them.....


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2009)

Yet another election meme:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1&ref=instapundit&pagewanted=all



> *Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government*
> 
> by EDMUND L. ANDREWS
> Published: November 22, 2009
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (26 Nov 2009)

The man dubbed by our own Mr. Campbell as the leader of the "lunatic fringe" has returned.   ;D



> Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs — whose abrupt departure from the struggling cable network stunned his fans — is mulling a run for the White House in 2012 and has even reached out to Latino groups to see if he can mend fences.
> “It’s one of the discussions that we’re having,” Dobbs said in an interview on WTOP radio in Washington.
> 
> DOBBS' STAFF MUST REAPPLY FOR JOBS
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2009)

Anyone running anywhere needs to appeal to this demographic:





> *Bedford Falls, USA*
> By Salena Zito
> 
> INDIANA, Pa. - Turn the corner onto Philadelphia Street in this small Western Pennsylvania town, and you might be on the main street of Bedford Falls, the mythical town in Frank Capra's Christmas classic film, It's a Wonderful Life.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2009)

The consent of the governed:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/29/the-consent-of-the-governed/



> *The Consent of the Governed*
> posted at 2:21 am on November 29, 2009 by Doctor Zero
> 
> Jonah Goldberg of National Review recently wrote about the high-stakes political battle over health care reform:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2009)

A deeper look at Governor Palin's political history and philosophy. Something to consider before either accepting or rejecting the idea Governor Palin will either be a candidate or kingmaker in the 2012 election.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/11/sarah-palins-governing-philosophy-emerges-in-going-rogue.html



> Monday, November 30, 2009
> *Sarah Palin's Governing Philosophy Emerges In "Going Rogue"*
> 
> Based upon an Op-Ed in the Appeal-Democrat, it's suggested that, far from a political neophyte, Sarah Palin possesses a critical instinct for a governing style consistent with limited, cost-effective governing - and that she's resistant to being drawn in to the type of conventional wisdom that often moves politicians to the Left post-election.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2009)

Hypothetical T.E.A. party candidates outpoll Republicans. What does this portend (especially given traditional third parties don't do well in the United States?). Can a third party rise and displace the GOP? Historical analogy actually says "yes", the Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whig movement and Lincoln was a prominent Whig befor becomeing a leading light in the "Radical Republican" movement and ultimatley President:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot



> *Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot *
> Monday, December 07, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
> 
> Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Dec 2009)

Sarah Palin

Note comment re third party: excerpt from  http://www.mediaite.com/online/will-sarah-palin-go-third-party-rogue-in-2012/

WaPo’s Chris Cillizza pulled this little nugget from a Friday afternoon interview Palin gave to radio talk show host Lars Larson in which Palin doesn’t flat out reject the idea of a third party candidacy — in this news cycle that’s practically the same embracing it. From The Fix: 

Asked by Larson whether she would consider running as a third party candidate, Palin said: “That depends on how things go in the next couple of years.” Larson told the 2008 vice presidential nominee that answer “sounds like a yes” to which she responded: “If the Republican party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there’s not going to be a need for a third party, but I’ll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years.” Which, to the Fix’s delicate ears, sounds like Palin leaving the door wide open.

And now the eye opener from the LA Times no less: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack-obama-poll-gap-narrows.html

Excerpt:

Shocker polls: That Sarah Palin-Barack Obama gap melts to 1 point; and

Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.

Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November we pointed out that Obama's closely watched job approval slide was coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s. 

Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

More on what's shaping the electorate for 2012:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/07/the-first-sign-of-corruption/



> *The First Sign Of Corruption*
> posted at 4:39 pm on December 7, 2009 by Doctor Zero
> printer-friendly The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means. – Georges Bernanos
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2009)

As always, the real questioon is how will the libertarian/conservative movement in the United States be able to capitalize on this?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/14/cook-report-number-of-likely-democratic-house-seats-down-to-218/



> *Cook report: Number of “likely” Democratic House seats down to … 218*
> 
> posted at 5:48 pm on December 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
> Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Dec 2009)

A number of democrat incumbents arent even going to run next year. The so called blue dogs are particularly vulnerable to republican opponents. The election next year will be all about the economy. If it doesnt get better alot of democrats will be out. I just dont see the democrats retaining a majority in the House. In the Senate they will lose some seats but should retain a majority but will lose their filibuster proof edge. My estimate would be 52-48. Reid himself is on very thin ice in Nevada and could lose. Some folks think Obama wants a republican majority to run against in 2012. Obama's problem is that he campaigned as a centrist but has governed from the far left. His policies are right out of Ayn Rand and 1984. His poll numbers fall each week as independents pull away. Healthcare looks like its in serious trouble and cap and trade as well. Both programs would hit the middle class very hard with even more taxes. Obama will use regulation to acheive the same goals if he can which will not endear him to the public.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2009)

Republicans should take note; they might not be able to capitalize on the disarray in the Administration and the Congress when voters are thinking like this:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2154426.aspx



> *Tea Party more popular than Dems, GOP*
> Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:00 PM by Mark Murray
> Filed Under: Democrats, Republicans, Polls
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2009)

The stakes in 2010 and 2012 are very high indeed:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view601.html#believer



> *"Angry Liberals Edge Toward a Mutiny" says the Wall Street Journal.
> *
> Liberal blogs such as Daily Kos are blasting the Senate bill, especially since it dropped a government-run "public option" and killed a plan to expand Medicare. Liberal House members are venting their fury at senators who are lukewarm on the revamp, especially Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Labor unions are protesting proposed taxes on high-value insurance policies.
> 
> ...



Given Dr Pournelle's views on political parties, thinking of the short timelines and adding the information (from previous posts) that the Libertarian/Classical Liberal T.E.A. party movement is actually more popular than either current American party, the obvious solution would be for the T.E.A. partiers to institute takeovers of the Republican party on a district by district basis. While they are at it, they should also take over electoral wards in Civic politics and State districts as well, the potential for chain reaction economic collapses as cities and States go bankrupt due to unstainable and unfunded pension and benefits is probably the greatest hidden danger in the US and thus global economy.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2009)

"obvious solution would be for the T.E.A. partiers to institute takeovers of the Republican party " and that is exactly what is being said down here along with the comment:  just like the radical left is now taking over the Democratic Party.

There appears to very little chance of a three party system, that's why the takeovers.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2009)

Heh:


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2009)

Dominos are being set up for 2010; this will certainly change the calculus for 2012:

http://deumcolere.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/democrat-rep-switches-to-gop/



> *Democrat Rep. Switches to GOP*
> December 22, 2009
> 
> A member of the House of Representatives for the Democrats, Parker Griffith (D-Ala), will switch to the Republican Party. The switch, confirmed by Griffith as well as Republican and Democrat Party sources, comes as a result of what Griffith calls ”those in the Democratic leadership” who “continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system.” Griffith, who was elected to the House of Representatives in the 2008 elections, will become the first Republican to represent Alabama’s 5th congressional district since 1869.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Dec 2009)

All the Blue Dog Democrats voted and are voting for the health care bill.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2010)

More on how the T.E.A. party movement might be able to move the goalposts (and some pitfalls they may encounter)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tea-party-2010-revolution-brewing-or-is-that-some-weak-tea/



> T*ea Party 2010: Revolution Brewing? Or Is That Some Weak Tea?*
> 
> Posted By Andrew Ian Dodge On January 3, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Column1 02, Opinion, Politics, US News | 74 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2010)

The Dems expect to go up against "W" and Governor Palin in the next election cycle. Looks like the policy book is empty on the progressive side. Maybe the Dems can also try running against Stephen Harper as well....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640310139975426.html



> *Post, Post-Partisan*
> 
> How worried are Democrats about the mid-term voting only 10 months away? "If the election were held today, we'd lose the House," Democratic campaign consultant Tom King told the Huffington Post this week, expressing a view that HuffPo says is echoed by a number of Democratic strategists in off-the-record conversations.
> 
> ...



Instapundit says:



> Given that the Tea Party is currently outpolling both Democrats and Republicans, this seems ill-advised. . . .


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2010)

The T.E.A. party has become a full fledged political movement:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tea-party-nation-would-like-to-announce-the-following-efforts-and-status-of-the-nationwide-tea-party-convention-81413572.html



> *Tea Party Nation Would Like to Announce the Following Efforts and Status of the Nationwide TEA Party Convention*
> NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jan. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
> 
> Media
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2010)

This sort of behaviour should be of great concern to everyone (American or not). We should not be complacent either; are Canadian election lists being manipulated? This isn't a totally open and shut question, we have seen very questionable behaviour from Elections Canada wrt campaign funding (Many Liberal leadership candidates owe tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and have yet to pay off these debts despite clear laws requiring them to do so; Elections Canada has been notably silent about this. What else isn't being said?):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/democrats-plan-for-election-2010-cheat/



> *Democrats’ Plan for Election 2010: Cheat*
> 
> Posted By Sarah Durand On January 18, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 02, . Positioning, Politics, US News | 67 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jan 2010)

Cheating works only if its close- a la Al Franken in Minnesota. Tuesday we shall see if Republican Scott Brown wins in Mass. the bluest of blue states,then the dem's may start pulling away from the Obama agenda.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2010)

And while the T.E.A. partiers organize for the mid terms, _*one person*_ stands between them and the Administration!:

http://dodocanspell.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-is-ellie-light.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DodoCanSpell+%28Dodo+Can+Spell%29



> *Who is Ellie Light ?*
> 
> She is probably a dark creature of the night and needs sunlight to be thrown on her. The wheels of the PR machine that brought Obama to the WH have seen their day and are now coming unhinged. About time! What follows is what investigative journalism should be all about, a thinking process that leads a journalist to fit pieces into a jigsaw puzzle and then show the  work to the readers. My bets are on the HillBuzz guys, that they will solve the mystery of Ellie Light. Bloggers are turning out to be better journalists than those newspaper hacks and the MSM have ever proven to be.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2010)

Jerry Pournelle on the T.E.A. party movement. His thought that the partiers should find it easier to capture the Democrat Party is somewhat counterintuative, but then again even Robert A Heinlein once ran for office as a Democrat....

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q1/view606.html#Noonan



> *Nuts and Creeps and GooGoos Oh! My!*
> 
> She takes longer to say it than I would, but Peggy Noonan in today's WSJ has a very good analysis of the Bay State Election. I particularly like her characterization of the political parties as the Nuts (Democrats after Clinton) vs. the Creeps (Republicans in the post Gingrich era).
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2010)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ provides an update on the antics activities of one of Thucydides’ favourite political movements, the brilliantly named _Tea Party_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/brewing-up-a-political-storm/article1455526/


> *The American Right*
> Brewing up a political storm
> *As its adherents meet in Nashville, it remains an open question whether the Tea Party movement will change history the way its namesake did*
> 
> ...




A quibble, first: It is not clear to me that the _Good Grey Globe’s_ introductory line “The American Right” is accurate. While there is, still, a visible and viable “left wing” in American (and British and Canadian) politics I am not satisfied that there is anything like a coherent “right” any more. Even if there was I’, not sure I would put the Tea Party in it.

Ms. Palin and some Tea Party adherents seem to be aiming for a _Jeffersonian_ policy when she says, _“Government, you have constitutional limits. You better start abiding by them.”_ Jefferson offered the Americans reduced taxes, a slim, trim military budget, and, _inter alia_ a plan to extinguish the public debt; simplicity and frugality became the hallmarks of his administration. That used to be the foundation of Republican policy – but George W Bush and the _interventionist_ wing put paid to all that.

The point I find most interesting is that, simultaneously, the Republicans are trying to take over the Tea Party while some Tea Party _activists_ are trying to take over the Republican Party. Perhaps this can facilitate a split in the Republicans that I think is necessary for its survival. Perhaps the _Christian Right_ and the Rush Limbaugh wing and some of the _libertarian_ Tea Party elements will abandon ship and form their own party, leaving a moderate Republican _movement_ that preaches and practices _traditional_ small town, _small business_, frugal, _fiscally responsible_, efficient government, _isolationist_ – in other words _Jeffersonian_ - values. That Republican Party has a hope of winning back the congress and the White House, maybe not in 2012 but starting then.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2010)

I can't find the reference immediately but I believe that I read recently that Tea Party enthusiasts include disaffected Left Wingers and conservative Democrats.  The conservative Democrats on fairly obvious grounds.  Their loyalty to the party is more tribal than philosophical.   The Left Wingers are a little more complex -   Democrats courted "Hippies" on social grounds but "Hippies" are ultimately anti-government (government = fascism).  Your average Haight-Ashbury Summer of Love graduate is no more enamoured of Democrats telling them what to do than Republicans.

NOTE - this is not an original thought.  Others have been here before.  I just happen to agree with it.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> [A] moderate Republican _movement_ that preaches and practices _traditional_ small town, _small business_, frugal, _fiscally responsible_, efficient government, _isolationist_ – in other words _Jeffersonian_ - values.



The only quibble is at the end; Jeffersonian America was never "isolationist" and Jefferson himself is the father of the US Navy and Marines (to battle the Barbary pirates). The Republic needed (and needs) to robustly protect its own self interest, and today's model of an interconnected global economy would defeat any trends towards isolationism unless Communist Albania or the DPRK is your model. Small "l" libertarianism resembles this model as well, I believe the TEA party movement will be a strong proponent of Libertarianism and bring this philosophy more into the mainstream of political and social thought.

A renewed Jeffersonian Republic would probably be much more restrained in its global reach, long term basing rights would not be part of the military/political agenda, nor would a large standing army or decades long occupations. Of course, anyone who thinks American interests would not be served under this regime would discover the long arm of the US Navy and Marines....


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2010)

Where will the TEA party go next?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/06/tea-partys-next-chapter-answers-unclear/?feat=home_headlines



> *Tea Party's next chapter? Answers unclear*
> 
> Liz Sidoti ASSOCIATED PRESS
> 
> ...



and another attack route for the TEA partiers:

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/02/05/tea-partiers-need-to-become-experts-on-democrat-fundraising/



> Tea Partiers Need To Become Experts on Democrat Fundraising
> Posted by hillbuzz under Uncategorized | Tags: Cut DNC revenue stream, DNC fundraising, How to cut the DNC off from its donors, Make donors not want to give to DNC |
> [50] Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2010)

The TEA party in historical context:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Glenn-Reynolds-Tea-Party-Nashville-was-Americas-Third-Great-Awakening--83762647.html



> *Glenn Reynolds: Nashville Shows Tea Party Is America's Third Great Awakening*
> By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
> Examiner Contributor
> February 7, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2010)

Political rent seekers will fight to the last taxpayer to keep thier power and privilage:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/234631



> *Fox Uncovers Anti-Tea-Party Slush-Fund Scam*
> Jennifer Rubin - 02.10.2010 - 8:45 AM
> 
> Fox News persists on covering news others don’t. It seems the “not really a news outlet” has uncovered  a major scam by the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2010)

No comment required:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2010)

Here is a meme for 2012: I'm running to save the party!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZhNmU5ZjEzMGJkZmQ3ZGE0OWU3YzJjM2FjZDJmZTQ=



> *Will Obama Have a Primary Challenger?*   [Jonah Goldberg]
> 
> I recently had dinner with some political reporter types and I asked the question: Will Obama have a non-crazy (i.e. not Nader, not Kucinich) primary challenger in 2012? The reaction was interesting in that most folks hadn't thought of the question before but immediately realized it wasn't entirely implausible. It was, however, the consensus that it's unlikely (and, of course, way too early to predict). Still, I thought this email was interesting:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2010)

It’s not often I agree wholeheartedly with David From, but this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _The Atlantic_ via today’s _National Post_, has my unreserved support:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=9b8957cf-597e-4a6f-ae6c-9124c041654a&p=1


> Bring back the Mugwumps
> *During the late 19th century, some Republican reformers earned their party's scorn by standing up for their ideas. Today's conservatives should follow their lead*
> 
> David Frum, National Post
> ...




Frum is right, *real* American conservatives have issues into which they can and should sink their teeth but they persist on chewing at the political fringes where Beck and Limbaugh and the other mouth breathing knuckle draggers live.

The Republicans, it seems to me, need to recapture their traditional base: the huge number of tolerant, secular, cautious/semi-isolationist, fiscally prudent _small town_ Americans. Leave big business, the big banks, big banks, big insurance and big education to the Democrats, leave the *libertarian* fringe to the Tea Party and leave the religious right out in the cold. Republicans need to make it clear that one can be a good, loyal, patriotic American, even the president, without be hyphenated as a Black-American or a Jewish-American or a Muslim-American. Christian ≠ loyal; Christian ≠ patriotic; Muslim ≠ enemy; Black ≠ spendthrift; and WASP ≠ good. ‘Good’ = honest, prudent, thoughtful and able and even willing to adapt to the realities of the world in which we find ourselves.

I’m not sure who the American republican leader will be: maybe Mitt Romeny, maybe Bobby Jindal, Linda Lingle, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen or J.C. Watts.



















Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Linda Lingle,Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and J.C. Watts
Potential Republican leaders come in all shapes, sizes, sexes, races and religions and from all regions, too: North-East, Deep South; Hawaii; Florida and the Mid West.


What I am sure of is that the Republicans have no change of recapturing the *independents* – who are necessary to regain control of the congress and/or the White House – if Beck and Limbaugh endorse their candidate.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2010)

More on the TEA party and what they represent. The conclusion is interesting but not intuitive, how many military commanders have become President (Washington, U.S.Grant, Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt come to mind) compared to how many military commanders come to greif in the field of politics?

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/21/tea-party-off-the-rails-or-straight-to-the-top/



> *Do Soldiers Drink Tea?*
> 
> Posted In: Politics, U.S. Foreign Policy
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2010)

A different view:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/27/are-democrats-choosing-to-run-off-a-cliff-with-obamacare/



> *Are Democrats choosing to run off a cliff with ObamaCare?*
> posted at 9:55 am on February 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
> Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2010)

A twofer which lays the 2010 and 2012 elections on the line: the TEA partiers are against the entrenched political class:

http://www.tucsonteaparty.org/?p=783



> *Arizona Tea Party Leaders Decline to Endorse in AZ Senate Race
> *
> March 1, 2010 by Trent Humphries
> Filed under News
> ...



The other side of the coin; "'We the People' be damned!"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/For-Obama-and-Pelosi_-health-care-is-ego-trip-85871962.html



> For Obama and Pelosi, health care is ego trip
> By: Byron York
> Chief Political Correspondent
> March 2, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2010)

Another look at TEA partiers:

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/03/02/study-of-tea-party-activists-reveals-motivations-of-political-movement/



> *Study of Tea Party Activists Reveals Motivations of Political Movement*
> by Publius
> 
> “The Early Adopters” Report uncovers that most oppose a third party, many are new to politics
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2010)

> A new study released today reveals that Tea Party activists are motivated by feelings of responsibility to future generations and belief in America’s founding principles, *but still struggle with questions of leadership *  and identity.



But still struggle with questions of leadership......

It is not just the Tea partiers who struggle with the question of leadership.

One of the oldest “democratic” institutions that survives into the modern world is “The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland”.  The senior voice in that august body is “The Moderator”.   The equivalent personage in the “House of Commons” is “The Speaker”.

I believe that most Tea Partiers probably have “Presbyterian” tendencies – not in the religious sense but in the organizational sense.  They are disinclined to accept ANY leader.  They want their seniors, their “elders”, to moderate, to adjudicate, to voice the consensus.......not to instruct them.  They are the intellectual heirs of Jenny Geddes and her famous outburst to the Royally appointed Bishop when he informed the congregation they would be following the Book of Common Prayer ....” who dare’s to say mass in my ear (wha daur say mass in mah lug).”

Equally confounding to the debate is that the political class and their media acolytes fail to “grok” (pace Heinlein) the concept of a world without “leaders”.  They just can’t begin to fathom the notion.  In their world there must be leaders for the mob can’t be trusted to make rational decisions.  Consequently when they perceive a mob they first of all conclude that it is acting irrationally.  When they perceive rationality within the mob then they search for the leaders that they believe must exist.

This is why the Europeans can’t tolerate the concept of the pragmatic parliament of the English where rational compromise substitutes for justice and right.  Unfortunately the English (and I use the term advisedly) are forgetting their parliamentary origins.  And here in Canada we struggle with a society that seeks  perfect answers from bodies of imperfect people.  

We need more presbyterians.....and not the church going kind.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2010)

The link to Presbyterianism is interesting, since this tracks fairly well with Samual Huntington's thesis in "Who are We?".

According to Huntington, American exceptionalism was born from the settler's dissenting Protestant philosophies (which were peculiar to that time and place; later waves of English settlers did not have these views and so nations like Canada and Australia do not replicate American political culture), which included the relationships between God and Man, the role of the Church, Government and the Rule of Law. The TEA partiers, whether they know this or not, are the heirs to the dissenting Protestants.

The showdown is between the TEA partiers, who are self motivated and self organized, and the current political elite harnessing the impressive "Top Down" organization and resources of the State. While the State has a distinct advantage (including the elites and their various hangers on, who are motivated to fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their position of privilege), historical examples going back to Classical Greece show the party with the greater degree of freedom has a considerable advantage, and can act in unexpected ways which brittle authoritarian structures cannot deal with.

For those of you who want some examples:

Athens vs Sparta
Res Publica Roma vs Carthage
Elizabethan England vs the Spanish Empire
The United Provinces vs the Spanish Empire
Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta vs the Ottoman Empire

I suspect the current elites will be unable to deal with the mounting financial crisis (especially since their sources of revenue are drying up with the "John Galt" strike and people are starting to question their ability to finance using debt instruments), and the collapse of the Federal guarantee programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized tuition, farm and other price supports etc. will leave the elites totally naked to the elements. I doubt their SEIU and ACORN brownshirts will be willing to take orders at that point (and that point is _already_ identified: Medicare's trust fund will go bankrupt by 2015 or 2016). This date could be brought up even sooner if a wave of chain reaction bankruptcies happen as "Blue" cities and states reach their tipping points (as unfunded entitlements, wages and benefits are claimed).

In that uncertain environment, the TEA partiers will be able to organize and survive in small communities of like minded citizens who are able and willing to take action on their own. I suspect they will disconnect from the larger economy by using barter and the Internet to handle transactions, and aggressively claim unused assets that bankrupt cities, political rent seekers and business have to jettison in order to build their wealth and thus ability to control their own destinies.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2010)

This would be a great idea anywhere: Survivor for candidates

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/04/taking-republicans-presidential-pulse-at-a-political-reality-sh/



> *Taking Republicans' Presidential Pulse at a Political Reality Show*
> Posted:
> 03/4/10
> Filed Under:Republicans, Polls, 2012 President
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2010)

Follow the money:

http://biggovernment.com/bjacobson/2010/03/05/tides-foundation-general-support-major-concern/



> *Tides Foundation: General Support, Major Concern*
> by Bret Jacobson
> 
> Not enough people know about the Tides Foundation, which is one of the original “philanthropic” donation launderers for donors who don’t want to be tied to fringe activist groups. Frankly, there’s too much to tell, but they’re the sugar daddy for ACORN (whose founder, Wade Rathke, is intricately linked within Tides official leadership).
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2010)

The 60's radicals have done their planning well and have essentially taken over the democrat party. Their allies in the unions and news media make them very tough to beat. Fortunately they have overplayed their hand and the public is alert to the danger these radicals represent. Obama and company are so focused on creating the mechanism of America's collapse that they dont care about the cost. They are gambling that even with Republicans in control after November that Obamacare,cap & tax and immigration reform will not be overturned. The administartion is doing nothing to craete jobs other than to pay unemployent benefits as they enable the total collapse of the US economy. Its with this collapse that the radical left can remake the US into a marxist workers paradise. If they are able to collapse the economy [a big IF] guiding a revolution is tricky business and could very easily spark a 2d American Revolution.

http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=wqba&message.id=29522


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2010)

My guess, as an outsider looking in from a reasonable vantage point, is that the Tea Party will have an impact, but it will hurt both Democrats and Republicans and it _may_ hurt the Republicans more because more (formerly) _committed_ (voting) Republicans are likely to abandon ship than are _committed_ Democrats. Thus, I suspect, the Democrats will hold on to the House and Senate in 2010 and to all of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in 2012.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2010)

So far the democrats havent won an election yet. They have certain safe seats in the House but everything is in play and thats according to democrat strategists.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2010)

More about the TEA party:

http://american.com/archive/2010/march/weak-tea-or-strong-tea



> *Weak Tea or Strong Tea?*
> 
> By Lee Harris Wednesday, March 10, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2010)

The TEA party represents the democratic ideal of power and accountability. Here is the opposite side of the coin from Washington:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/03/12/the-slaughter-solution-and-other-acts-of-desperation/



> *The Slaughter Solution and Other Acts of Desperation*
> 
> Is it “end-game” time in the debate over what to do with American health care? The other day, some industrious blogger—it might have been The Drudge Report—posted an amusing list of headlines from the past year or so, each announcing that, at long last, we’d reached the “end game” in the debate over health.  Just yesterday, President Obama said again that “the time to talk” was over: the time to vote had come.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (20 Mar 2010)

Wow. If he is interested, 2012 could prove to be another interesting election.

The UK's TELEGRAPH


> *Speculation is mounting that Gen David Petraeus could run as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. *
> 
> The shrewd and articulate military commander, credited with turning around the Iraq war, will deliver a speech at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire next week, a traditional staging post in the state where the first presidential primaries are held every four years. Each of the last eight presidents has spoken at the college on their way to victory.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Mar 2010)

Petraeus isnt a Republican.
Besides his recent proposal adding Israel and Palestine to his AO of responsibility has many scratching their heads. Who would want that headache at a time you are fighting on several fronts.

Our new healthcare bill carries a 2.3Triliion pricetag,not even the US can afford that for long. Throw in immigration reform and cap and trade and the economy should be tanking by November with the voters mad as hell. In the best of times mid term elections only see a 40% turnout and the President isnt on the ballot. One expert tonight thought it was possible that in this perfect storm that is brewing the democrats could lose 150 seats. I wouldnt go that far but certainly 80-100 are possible considering the results of recent elections. Even those living in blu states are tired of the tax burden and after tonight it will only get worse.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2010)

Very scary memes, especially given the holders of such ideas now have influence:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/24/steve-forbes-venezuela-hugo-chavez-media-robert-mcchesney-free-press/



> *STEVE FORBES: Could a Chavez-Style Media Crackdown Be Coming Our Way?*
> 
> By Steve Forbes
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Mar 2010)

Fortunately our Constitution has a real Bill of Rights which should afford some protection for civil liberties. Of the three branches of government the democrats hold two. The Supreme Court may or may not have the stones to stand up to Obama. Many of the States are exercising their rights under the Constitution so in the end we could see a Constitutional crisis.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2010)

Political "kingmakers" may or may not be a danger, but it seems it is easier than ever to become the power and money behind the throne. I am not too disturbed by people doing this in the open, like Vice President Gore or Governor Palin, but the people doing it in secret behind a screen of "institutions", "foundations" and other special interest groups getting money through cut outs (the MO of George Soros) _is_ very disturbing. Canada has a pretty tangled web of connections between Paul Desmarais, Power Corporation and the Liberal Party.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/sarah-palin-and-al-gore-are-on-rapidly.html#more



> *Sarah Palin and Al Gore are on Rapidly Becoming Billionaires and Billionaires Like Meg Whitman Vie to Become the Political Elite*
> 
> Wealth and Power always went hand in hand, but the path between the two has never been so short or easy as it is today with the internet and celebrity money machines. Examples are all around with Sarah Palin and Al Gore being the most prominent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Apr 2010)

Power without responsibility is a marvelous thing....

Some historical examples come to mind: Moses brother Aaron; Pontifex Maximus and his successors down to the current Pope; John Knox; Cardinal Richelieu; all Westminster Prime Ministers since Walpole.  All of them sought to influence and control while leaving others, the legally constituted authority, to suffer outrageous fortune's slings and arrows.

The Prime Minister's may have been the most successful of the all......Keep your eye on Lizzy and Chuck, you never know what they and their horsey friends are going to do next.

Of course Oprah is making a pretty fair stab at it herself.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

Without comment:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tea-partiers-get-valuable-lesson-from-david-axelrod/?singlepage=true



> *Tea Partiers Get Valuable Lesson from … David Axelrod*
> 
> He recently let slip the precise nature of his boss.
> April 15, 2010 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2010)

All the more critical for the GOP to win back both the Senate and House to slow down Obama's revolution. With control of the House comes the power of the purse. They will be able to defund some of Obama's most onerous programs.


----------



## observor 69 (18 Apr 2010)

THE NW YORK TIMES

April 18, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Welcome to Confederate History Month 
By FRANK RICH
It's kind of like that legendary stunt on the prime-time soap "Dallas," where we learned that nothing bad had really happened because the previous season's episodes were all a dream. We now know that the wave of anger that crashed on the Capitol as the health care bill passed last month — the death threats and epithets hurled at members of Congress — was also a mirage.

Take it from the louder voices on the right. Because no tape has surfaced of anyone yelling racial slurs at the civil rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis, it’s now a blogosphere “fact” that Lewis is a liar and the “lamestream media” concocted the entire incident. The same camp maintains as well that the spit landing on the Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was inadvertent spillover saliva from an over-frothing screamer — spittle, not spit, as it were. True, there is video evidence of the homophobic venom directed at Barney Frank — but, hey, Frank is white, so no racism there!

“It’s Not About Race” declared a headline on a typical column defending over-the-top “Obamacare” opponents from critics like me, who had the nerve to suggest a possible racial motive in the rage aimed at the likes of Lewis and Cleaver — neither of whom were major players in the Democrats’ health care campaign. It’s also mistaken, it seems, for anyone to posit that race might be animating anti-Obama hotheads like those who packed assault weapons at presidential town hall meetings on health care last summer. And surely it is outrageous for anyone to argue that conservative leaders are enabling such extremism by remaining silent or egging it on with cries of “Reload!” to pander to the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base. As Beck has said, it’s Obama who is the real racist. 

I would be more than happy to stand corrected. But the story of race and the right did not, alas, end with the health care bill. Hardly had we been told that all that ugliness was a fantasy than we learned back in the material world that the new Republican governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, had issued a state proclamation celebrating April as Confederate History Month. 

In doing so, he was resuscitating a dormant practice that had been initiated in 1997 by George Allen, the Virginia governor whose political career would implode in 2006 when he was caught on camera calling an Indian-American constituent “macaca.” McDonnell had been widely hailed by his party as a refreshing new “big tent” conservative star when he took office in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, in January. So perhaps his Dixiecrat proclamation, if not a dream, might have been a staff-driven gaffe rather than a deliberate act of racial provocation.

That hope evaporated once McDonnell was asked to explain why there was no mention of slavery in his declaration honoring “the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens.” After acknowledging that slavery was among “any number of aspects to that conflict between the states,” the governor went on to say that he had focused on the issues “I thought were most significant for Virginia.” Only when some of his own black supporters joined editorialists in observing that slavery was significant to some Virginians too — a fifth of the state’s population is black — did he beat a retreat and apologize.

But his original point had been successfully volleyed, and it was not an innocent mistake. McDonnell’s words have a well-worn provenance. In “Race and Reunion,” the definitive study of Civil War revisionism, the historian David W. Blight documents the long trajectory of the insidious campaign to erase slavery from the war’s history and reconfigure the lost Southern cause as a noble battle for states’ rights against an oppressive federal government. In its very first editorial upon resuming publication in postwar 1865, The Richmond Dispatch characterized the Civil War as a struggle for the South’s “sense of rights under the Constitution.” The editorial contained not “a single mention of slavery or black freedom,” Blight writes. That evasion would be a critical fixture of the myth-making to follow ever since.

McDonnell isn’t a native Virginian but he received his master’s and law degrees at Pat Robertson’s university in Virginia Beach during the 1980s, when Robertson was still a rare public defender of South Africa’s apartheid regime. As a major donor to McDonnell’s campaign and an invited guest to his Inaugural breakfast, Robertson is closer politically to his protégé than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama. McDonnell chose his language knowingly when initially trying to justify his vision of Confederate History Month. His sanitized spin on the Civil War could not have been better framed to appeal to an unreconstructed white cohort that, while much diminished in the 21st century, popped back out of the closet during the Obama ascendancy.

But once again you’d have to look hard to find any conservative leader who criticized McDonnell for playing with racial fire. Instead, another Southern governor — who, as it happened, had issued a Confederate Heritage Month proclamation of his own — took up his defense. The whole incident didn’t “amount to diddly,” said Haley Barbour, of Mississippi, when asked about it by Candy Crowley of CNN last weekend.

Barbour, a potential presidential aspirant, was speaking from New Orleans, where the Southern Republican Leadership Conference was in full cry. Howard Fineman of Newsweek reported that he couldn’t find any African-American, Hispanic or Asian-American attendees except for the usual G.O.P. tokens trotted out as speakers — J. C. Watts, Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele, only one of them (Jindal) holding public office.

New Orleans had last attracted G.O.P. attention in 2008, when John McCain visited there as part of a “forgotten places” campaign tour to deliver the message that his party cared about black Americans and that “never again” would the city’s tragedy be ignored. “Never” proved to have a shelf life of less than two years. None of the opening-night speakers at last weekend’s conference (Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mary Matalin et al.) so much as mentioned Hurricane Katrina, according to Ben Smith of Politico. When Barbour did refer to it later on, it was to praise the Bush administration’s recovery efforts and chastise the Democrats’ “man-made disaster” in Washington.

Most Americans who don’t like Obama or the health care bill are not racists. It may be a closer call among Tea Partiers, of whom only 1 percent are black, according to last week’s much dissected Times/CBS News poll. That same survey found that 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people — nearly twice the national average. And that’s just those who admit to it. Whatever their number, those who are threatened and enraged by the new Obama order are volatile. Conservative politicians are taking a walk on the wild side by coddling and encouraging them, whatever the short-term political gain. 

The temperature is higher now than it was a month ago. It’s not happenstance that officials from the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia and Mississippi have argued, as one said this month, that the Confederate Army had been “fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for.” Obama opposition increasingly comes wrapped in the racial code that McDonnell revived in endorsing Confederate History Month. The state attorneys general who are invoking states’ rights in their lawsuits to nullify the federal health care law are transparently pushing the same old hot buttons. 

“They tried it here in Arkansas in ’57, and it didn’t work,” said the Democratic governor of that state, Mike Beebe, likening the states’ health care suits to the failed effort of his predecessor Orval Faubus to block nine black students from attending the all-white Little Rock Central High School. That battle for states’ rights ended when President Eisenhower, a Republican who would be considered a traitor to his party in 2010, enforced federal law by sending in troops. 

How our current spike in neo-Confederate rebellion will end is unknown. It’s unnerving that Tea Party leaders and conservatives in the Oklahoma Legislature now aim to create a new volunteer militia that, as The Associated Press described it, would use as yet mysterious means to “help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” This is the same ideology that animated Timothy McVeigh, whose strike against the tyrannical federal government will reach its 15th anniversary on Monday in the same city where the Oklahoma Legislature meets.

What is known is that the nearly all-white G.O.P. is so traumatized by race it has now morphed into a bizarre paragon of both liberal and conservative racial political correctness. For irrefutable proof, look no further than the peculiar case of its chairman, Steele, whose reckless spending and incompetence would cost him his job at any other professional organization, let alone a political operation during an election year. Steele has job security only because he is the sole black man in a white party hierarchy. That hierarchy is as fearful of crossing him as it is of calling out the extreme Obama haters in its ranks.

At least we can take solace in the news that there’s no documentary evidence proving that Tea Party demonstrators hurled racist epithets at John Lewis. They were, it seems, only whistling "Dixie."


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

Frank Rich is a hilarious example of how the Legacy media is blind to what is happening.

1. There is no documentary evidence of the various charges raised by the Left against members of the TEA party

2. There is plenty of documentary evidence *against* most of the charges Rich lays in his piece, for example the gentleman who brought an AR-15 to a rally as a demonstration of his Second Amendment rights was also a black American; on August 7, black conservative Kenneth Gladney was beaten down by SEIU thugs at a town hall meeting in Saint Louis, Missouri. The beating took place on video camera – and the SEIU thugs were wearing SEIU-emblazoned garb.  Going through Instapundit reveals hundreds of photos (and links to more photos, video etc.) of TEA party demonstrations, where Americans of all ages, sexes and demographics are marching and speaking together.

3. Frank Rich and his kind will go to their graves denying, denying, denying the videos and photographs, since they do not support their "narrative".

4. Bloggers now write the first draft of history.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Apr 2010)

If anyone remembers their anti-communist training disinformation and agitprop are mainstays of their program. Tell the the Big Lie often and enough and people will be believe. As an interesting aside someone looked at the Communist Party USA platform and there is similarities with whats going on with the democrats.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm



> EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
> 
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2010)

I'm not sure this will have a great effect in 2010, but by 2012, a lot of political organizations and even local and regional levels of government may have been taken over.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/utah-tea-party-state/2010/04/20/id/356333



> *Utah Tea Party: We've Taken Over the State GOP*
> Tuesday, 20 Apr 2010 07:31 PM Article Font Size
> By: David A. Patten
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2010)

The Astroturf brigade starts disintegrating:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/26/coffee-party-founder-says-there-is-no-movement-to-oust-her-in-effort-to-become-more-radical/



> *Coffee Party founder says there is no movement to oust her in effort to become more radical*
> By Alex Pappas — The Daily Caller | Published: 04/26/10 at 2:03 PM | Updated: 04/27/10 at 4:21 AM
> 
> Annabel Park says there’s no coup in the works to remove her as the leader of the Coffee Party movement and replace her with someone more angry, radical and willing to be confrontational with conservatives. But a recent article in Newsweek suggests otherwise.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 May 2010)

Historical precedent to the TEA party:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-tea-party-of-the-1930s/?singlepage=true



> *The ‘Tea Party’ of the 1930s*
> 
> It ended FDR's rubber stamp. Is there a 2010 echo?
> May 8, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2010)

Another issue for the mid terms and the 2012 election. I think any attempt to sieze or devalue the various retirement savings of Americans (401(k), IRAs, Roth accounts etc) will energize a very large, organized and vocal opposition:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/are-democrats-plotting-to-steal-your-401-k/56605/



> *Are Democrats Plotting to Steal Your 401(k)?*
> May 12 2010, 12:51 PM ET |  Comment
> 
> The Department of Labor has issued a "request for comment" on what they can do to encourage more people to annuitize their 401(k)s, rather than actively managing personal investments.  The responses are due out soon, and somehow Republicans have turned this into a worry that Democrats are plotting to get their hands on our retirement savings.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2010)

I agree that talking, seriously, to Americans about fiscal prudence is good policy and _could_, indeed _*should*_ be good politics, too. But I am not convinced that the Beck/Limbaugh/Palin faction, which appears to dominate the Republican Party now, is either smart enough or serious enough about *leading* America out of the current morass to seize the issue.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 May 2010)

Tax and spend liberals. No different than their European ilk who now face an EU meltdown. Europe today is where the US is headed.

On the bright side a recent poll indicates a voter shift to the Republicans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247904575240812672173820.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's mid-term campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The findings suggest that public opinion has hardened in advance of the 2010 elections, making it tougher for Democrats to translate their legislative successes, or a tentatively improving U.S. economy, into gains among voters.

Republicans have reassembled their coalition by reconnecting with independents, seniors, blue-collar voters, suburban women and small town and rural voters—all of whom had moved away from the party in the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Those voter groups now favor GOP control of Congress.

"This data is what it looks like when Republicans assemble what for them is a winning coalition," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart. 

He said the Republican alliance appeared to be "firmer and more substantial" than earlier in the year.

Mr. Hart noted that, to his own party's detriment, a series of major news events and legislative achievements—including passage of a sweeping health-care law, negotiating a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and making a quick arrest in the Times Square terrorism attempt—has not measurably increased support for Democrats. "A lot has happened," he said, "but the basic dynamic of the 2010 elections seems almost set in concrete."

A big shift is evident among independents, who at this point in the 2006 campaign favored Democratic control of Congress rather than Republican control, 40% to 24%. In this poll, independents favored the GOP, 38% to 30%.

Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. In the latest survey, they narrowly favored Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround was seen among voters 65 and older.

"This is the inverse of where we were four years ago, and in a way that projects to substantial Democratic losses in November," Mr. McInturff said.

The new survey gives incumbents of either party little reason for comfort. Only about one in five respondents approved of the job Congress is doing. 

People in the survey felt overwhelmingly negative toward both political parties.

Nearly one-third of respondents said they "almost never" trust the government in Washington to do what is right—about triple the number who felt that way when the question was asked in October.

Those feelings were evident in the past week, with the ouster of longtime incumbents from each party. After 18 years in office, Sen. Robert Bennett (R, Utah) was rejected for re-nomination at Saturday's Utah GOP convention. 

On Tuesday, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D, W.Va.) lost his primary election by a surprisingly large 56% to 44% margin. He had served 14 terms in the House.

"It is a tough year for incumbents, no doubt about that," said Sen. Arlen Specter (D, Pa.).

Mr. Specter didn't express great confidence that he would prevail Tuesday in his own primary contest, in which polls show him neck-and-neck with Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak. 

"I don't make predictions; I run for re-election," Mr. Specter said. "I've been in a lot of tough races, and I'm slugging it out."

While the survey results foreshadow a strong showing for Republicans, they also show that voters were far more motivated by their frustration with Democrats and government in general than by an affinity for the GOP. 

Just 30% in the survey said they felt positively about the Republican Party—a smaller share than for the Democratic Party and the tea party movement. 

Of those who want to see Republicans control the House, less than one-third said that was because they support the GOP and its candidates. 

Rather, nearly two-thirds said they were motivated by opposition to Mr. Obama and Democratic policies. 

"Republicans ran us under financially, and the Democrats are worse," said poll respondent William Lina, 80, of Alden, N.Y., who is a registered Democrat but plans to vote a straight Republican ticket in November. 

He cited frustration with the Democrats' health-care overhaul and the economic stimulus program. 

Joe Carter, a 53-year-old Republican from Kingsport, Tenn., who has voted for Democrats in the past, said he, too, would likely vote a straight Republican ticket. 

"Both parties do things I disagree with," Mr. Carter said. "But just to stop what's going on now, I will vote Republican."

Overall, the survey found that voters were split over which party they preferred to control Congress after November, with 44% favoring each party. 

But that finding masked the overwhelming Republican advantage among the voters most likely to cast ballots on Election Day.

The voters who said they were most interested in the November elections favor Republican control of Congress by a 20-point margin, with 56% backing the GOP and 36% backing Democrats—the highest gap all year on that question. 

Mr. Obama's approval rating in the survey has remained stable, with 50% approving of his job performance, compared with 48% in March. 

In the wake of the attempted Times Square terrorist attack, a plurality of respondents approve of his handling of terrorism.

But, despite White House predictions that passage of Mr. Obama's health-care bill would boost Democrats in November, the issue still appeared to be more of a drag on the president's party. 

Some 44% called the health plan a bad idea, compared to 38% who saw it as a good idea.

The poll also showed sharp divisions among voters on the subject of illegal immigration.

Among all adults, support is high for the new Arizona law that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires law enforcement officers to question people if they have reasonable suspicions about their immigration status. 

Some 64% said they strongly or somewhat supported the law, compared with 34% who strongly or somewhat opposed it.

Divisions were even sharper between whites and Hispanics. Among Hispanic respondents, 70% opposed the law, while 69% of whites in the survey supported it. 

The survey oversampled Hispanics to increase accuracy.

Hispanics also held a different view of immigration generally than did white respondents. 

In the survey, 58% of Hispanics said that immigration helped the U.S. more than it hurt, while 56% of white respondents said that immigration hurt more than it helped.

The survey found that, at the moment, Hispanics greatly favored Democrats over Republicans, particularly among Hispanics under age 40. 

That stands as a danger sign for the GOP given the rapid growth of that voter bloc.

But Hispanics were far less interested in this year's elections than key Republican-leaning groups, meaning that the benefits of this trend might not accrue to the Democrats until at least the 2012 elections.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Tax and spend liberals. No different than their European ilk who now face an EU meltdown. Europe today is where the US is headed.
> ...




I agree but, my impression is that many (most?) Americans do not. Even in pretty rock-ribbed Republican Texas when I asked some American acquaintances what they wanted their local, state and federal governments to stop doing I got, at best, a few nibbles around the edges of some tiny programmes and an admonition to make "them" stop "wasting" money.

Europe is about to face some wrenching choices; there will be riots, indeed blood on the streets of Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool, London, Bordeaux, Lyon, Paris, Marseilles, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Lisbon and so on up and down the length and breadth of Europe.

Europe today, and in the bloody near future, is the USA is headed.

----------

P.S. Everyone who wants DND exempted from budget cuts must understand that Canada, too, must cut its budget deficits and run surpluses again, soon; and Canadians, themselves, must do the same or they will face the same grim futures as Americans and Europeans.


----------



## GAP (13 May 2010)

I would suggest that Canadians are going to see real sticker shock when interest rates start rising. An article the other day stated that per capita, we are the most personally indebted population in the world. 

That has to come home to roost.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2010)

Greece provided the intellectual foundation for the American Republic, now maybe Greece can save America again?

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/05/24/how-greek-debt-crisis-could-save-america/



> *How Greek debt crisis could save America*
> 
> May 24, 2010 18:21 EDT
> budget deficit | national debt | VAT
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2010)

It increasingly seems the political contest is actually between "We, the People" and an arrogent and disconnected political class:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026783.php



> *A Dangerous Disaffection *
> 
> Share Post   PrintJuly 17, 2010 Posted by John at 6:26 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2010)

And people are openly talking and thinking about the next step if the political class cannot be removed by electoral means (or uses the powers of the State to maintain thier hold on the wealth and privilages they can extort from taxpayers

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/        19 July 2010



> *WHAT TO DO?* In response to this piece by Angelo Codevilla on America’s ruling class, readers wonder what to do. Well, a few things suggest themselves.
> 
> First: Mockery. They are very mockable, and they are very thin-skinned. That leads them to erupt in embarrassing ways. Use their sense of entitlement against them.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2010)

An interesting discussion on why the Obama administration does what it does. (I suspect they will not choose to follow the prescriptive advice on how to govern in a bipartisan fashion). The very narrow coalition of voters and interests who voted for this administration will find it harder to keep their hold on power given the rather large coalition of voters and interests who are assembling for the Mid-terms and the 2012 election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242720/obamas-blunder-jonah-goldberg



> *Obama’s Blunder*
> August 07, 2010 5:12 PM By Jonah Goldberg
> In February, I wrote:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2010)

Another trope for smart right wing politicians to run with:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/08/bush-tax-cuts.html



> *Bush Tax Cuts... for the poor and middle class:*
> 
> According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2010)

A look at the upcoming mid terms. How they play out will also determine the course of this Administration, the US and global economy, foreign policy etc. One thing I find odd is while the Dems are in trouble according to the polls, the Republicans don't seem to have a coherent message. Without this sort of groundwork, I suspect they will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The TEA party has managed to take over a few of the races, taking over what we would call riding committees and fielding their own candidates, but not on the scale this article would indicate is called for (go to link to see the maps):

http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/08/18/running-scared/?singlepage=true



> *Running Scared*
> August 18, 2010 - by Stephen Green
> 
> We’ve been wargaming the coming Congressional shakeup for a few months now, but today let’s do something a little different — make it visual. Courtesy of 270toWin, here’s what the current Congress looks like.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2010)

All of the Republican candidates will tie their opponents voting record like a millstone around their necks. The dem's are toast in November the only question is how bad will it be ? I have seen estimates of anywhere from 35 to 80. Either way Pelosi is done as Speaker and will probably be voted Minority Leader. Alot of the public isnt buying what the dem's are selling.


----------



## GAP (20 Aug 2010)

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the voting public.....


----------



## a_majoor (20 Aug 2010)

While I know you are far better connected to the mood in the US than I, there are a few questions that trouble me about this thing:

1. Even "Blue" states have the Dem vote concentrated in the cities. The Dem voting record might resonate with that class of voter ("see, we brought you FREE healthcare!"). This might actually entrench them deeper and allow them to retain "Blue" states.

2. One word: ACORN. Widespread voter fraud, questionable election fundraising and other acts to distort the vote in favour of the Democrat party will certainly take place. Will it tip the balance?

3. Alternatives: What is the Republican party offering to the voters other than "We're not Dems"? At least the TEA party movement is against big government in general and willing to kick out Republican politicians of the RINO variety as well as taking on the Democrat party as a whole. This alone might upset the sort of political calculations expressed in this and other articles; will the TEA party act as a spoiler and allow Democrat candidates to run up the middle? (Even TEA party members sitting out elections since they support "none of the above" could tip the balance).

4. Narrative. The legacy media invested heavily in getting this administration elected and cheerleading its policies (and mudslinging against any real or imagined opposition). Will they double down to keep from looking like they were suckered in 2008? Since the majority of people still get their news and opinions from the Legacy media,  can this tip the balance?

Remember, the "Mandate" of the Obama administration was only about 2% of the popular vote, so it would not take too much to keep and hold the electoral ground (and elections to the House and Senate are by popular vote, not through the Electoral College).

Things to think about.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Aug 2010)

A group to watch are the "swing voters". Those who in the last election voted for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. Will they return to their former home with the Republicans?


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2010)

According to the polls the independents are fleeing the democrats. It was independents that put Obama in the White House and it will be independents that turn out the democrats. The dem's have drifted too far to the left for most of the public. In an off year election they wont be able to energize their base. 2012 will be interesting because like this year it will be all about the economy. Obama will blame a republican congress and the republicans will be pointing fingers at the White House. If the republicans win they will have to try and roll back the radical Obama agenda. Only a third of the stimulus has been spent it would be vital to send that money back to the treasury. If Obama veto's the bill the republicans will have to garner enough votes to overturn the veto. I wish I could press the fast forward button.


----------



## CougarKing (24 Aug 2010)

> Associated Press link
> 
> *
> McCain likely to turn back tea party challenge  *
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Aug 2010)

Looks like Miller won in a close race in Alaska. Right now he is up 51.8%-48%. A 2300 vote lead.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Aug 2010)

Warning of New Disease to hit the USA in the Fall of 2010 

Information about Gonorrhea Lectim (Democratis strain)

The US Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease.

The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible affliction.

The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum.

Many victims contracted it in 2008...but it is only now that most people, after having been infected for the past few years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.

It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout, pronounced ‘Vote them out”.

You take the first dose in 2010 (economy variant) and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.

Most states are already on top of this, like many in the south, and apparently now in the east, with many more seeing the writing on the wall.

Note: You can substitute LieLiberals, Ontario, etc  if you wish!


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2010)

A look ahead. Governor Palin will be a very powerful force over the next two election cycles regardless of her Presidential aspirations, this will be interesting to watch.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027090.php



> *The Tea Party movement and 2012 *
> 
> August 26, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:29 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting assessment of the threat the _Tea Party_ movement poses to the GOP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/republicans-caught-in-the-honour-system/article1688432/


> Republicans caught in the ‘honour’ system
> *Tea Partiers pose dilemma for GOP: they help discredit Obama, but movement could also backfire horribly*
> 
> Konrad Yakabuski
> ...




I guess most people here know that I despise Glen Beck (I think he’s more of an idiot and, therefore, more dangerous to democracy than even mega-dimwit Lou Dobbs) and I think Sarah Palin is a national embarrassment to America. That being said, they have energized a highly active and committed ‘base’ that is unlikely to be friendly to anyone who fails to adhere, rigidly, to its populist, small government mantra.

Like Dobbs and Beck, the Tea Party has a small core of good, even right ideas, but, as with Dobbs and Beck, the few good ideas are too often hidden behind walls of rubbish and nonsense. It may be good politics but it makes for bad policy.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2010)

And the covenanting puritans that overthrew the Stewarts burned a lot of witches before we ended up with Hanoverian democracy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _CNN_, is an analysis of Glen Beck’s rally that focuses on his ‘positioning’ as a (the?) new leader of the _religious right_. It must be borne in mind, by most Canadians, that there is one quite fundamental difference between Americans and Canadians: most Americans are religious, most Canadians are not. It is not cut and dried: there are many deeply religious, spiritually committed Canadians and there are many, many secular Americans but, broadly, Canada, rather like China and Western Europe – but less so, is secular and America, rather like the Islamic Crescent- but less so, is religious. Thus, while the ‘leadership’ of the _religious right_ (or _left_ for that matter) in Canada is pretty much irrelevant (it gets you what? The Christian Heritage Party and a few even smaller, more _remote_ fringes?) in America the ‘leadership’ of the _religious right_ does matter because we have seen what happens (2000 and 2004) when the religious right ‘gets out the vote’ and (2008) what happens when it ‘sits on its hands.’

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/28/at-rally-beck-positions-himself-as-new-leader-for-christian-conservatives/?hpt=C2


> TRENDING: At rally, Beck positions himself as new leader for Christian conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Caution: I remain opposed to all forms of real, established or incipient _theocracy_ including  the Taliban, the Dalai Lama and his followers and the US religious right. We consent to being governed by laws, not by men, in order to moderate the influence of powerful _collectives_; the _collectives_, be they a hereditary nobility, mystical ‘reborn’ _bodhisattas_ or trained _theologians_ are all dangers to liberal (or conservative) democracy. 

The big, immediate, danger to both the Democrats and Republicans in the USA is that the anti-incumbent, small government, semi-libertarian _Tea Party_ proponents might make (philosophically unlikely) common cause with the _religious right_. In the long term separating the _religious right_ from the GOP will be a good thing – the Republicans need to return to their _conservative_, secular, small town, small business roots, the values of which still resonate with many Americans, including (most?) American _independents_.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2010)

Another radio personality, Ralph Klein, said the key to political success was to figure out which way the parade was going then run to get out in front of it and "lead".

Glen Beck I put in that league.  He isn't a leader.  The Tea Party took off without him.  He has just made himself the/a voice for the movement.  

Sara Palin might have a better claim to be a leader.

But I don't really think there is a leader per se.  I think the Tea Party was born from that increasingly large segment of the population that didn't see themselves as either partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans, that tuned out the debates (flame wars, bar fights, "your mother wears army boots" encounters in the press) and were declared to be apathetic because they didn't vote.

Maybe that bunch now feels they have a reason to vote. 

Obama as motivator.


----------



## Shock (29 Aug 2010)

Sorry, couldn't resist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk

Glenn Beck at his finest.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2010)

It will be interesting to see what ticket the Democrats offer in 2012:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/predicting-the-2012-gop-presidential-ticket/?singlepage=true



> *Predicting the 2012 GOP Presidential Ticket*
> Tomorrow's elections today, because it's never too early.
> September 2, 2010 - by Myra Adams
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2010)

Not everyone is wishing the TEA party movement success:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-shadow-party-how-a-washington-based-liberal-activist-is-trying-to-turn-texas-blue-whether-texans-want-it-or-not/?singlepage=true



> *The Shadow Party: How a Washington-Based Liberal Activist Is Trying to Turn Texas Blue (Whether Texans Want It or Not)*
> The "Colorado Model" and George Soros' "Shadow Party" have both landed in Texas in the form of a shady activist with a plan: attack the GOP's largest stronghold and destroy its limited-government success story.
> September 16, 2010 - by Bryan Preston
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2010)

It is no secret that I am not a Glenn Beck fan; this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, offers what I think is a _fair and balanced_ assessment of Mr. Beck's appeal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/glenn-beck-preacher-politician-entertainer-and-marketer/article1725206/page1/


> Glenn Beck: preacher, politician, entertainer and marketer
> 
> Konrad Yakabuski
> 
> ...




Mr. Beck's appeal is easy enough to explain: his message is easy and even, in parts, compelling and, now and again, correct. Thomas Sowell's _Dismantling America_, is worth a read and some serious consideration. To the degree that Sowell informs Beck then Beck is at least adequately informed. But Beck is playing with fire, too. His now _covert_ appeals to racism and _nativism_ are dangerous; of course I firmly reject any and all religious influence in politics and I instinctively mistrust all those, like the Dalai Lama, for example, who wrap themselves and their politics in religion.

The biggest danger, I think, is that Beck represents a dangerous trend in _infotainment_. He has become a long _infomercial_ masquerading as news and opinion. Do we really want politics à la Ron Popeil? That's what we're getting when the chair of a US Congressional sub-committee, frustrated because the media was ignoring her sub-committee's important, indeed vital hearing on immigration – in favour of e.g. Lindsay Lohan's court appearance, invited a comedien to address her group. She didn't think Mr. Colbert had anything useful to say but she judged, correctly, that the media would follow an entertainer and might, coincidentally, manage to inform Americans about a key issue.

The problem isn't Glenn Beck or Stephen Colbert or even Lindsay Lohan. Walt Kelly was right:








Edit: format


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2010)

Perhaps we need people like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Governor Palin etc. to get people off their collective butts. Complacency allowed this to happen; citizen activists are fighting it (perhaps because of movements like the TEA party to provide inspiration):

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/local-tea-party-group-may-have-uncovered-massive-vote-fraud-in-texas-103823128.html



> *Local Tea Party group may have uncovered massive vote fraud in Texas*
> By: Mark Hemingway
> Commentary Staff Writer
> 09/26/10 3:35 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Sep 2010)

Talk about voter fraud in Afghanistan! 

I believe , in Texas , that _*Photo ID*_ does not need to be presented in any election, at any level. A retired teacher at the  San Antonio church I attend, told me during the Obama election they were not allowed to ask for any ID. 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7053382.html
Voter ID fight appears certain in Texas Legislature

By GARY SCHARRER
AUSTIN BUREAU
June 14, 2010

Both major political parties signaled Monday that neither side is ready to give an inch on the politically divisive voter ID issue expected to come before Texas legislators again when they reconvene in January.

Republicans want to make elections more secure. Democrats, citing the lack of any large-scale fake voter problem, contend the GOP simply wants to make voting harder for Texans most likely to support Democrats - low-income folks, minorities and the elderly.

Eleven states have some sort of photo ID system for voting. Several of them, including Republican-dominated Idaho, allow voters without ID to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. An affidavit creates a paper trail for prosecution if ineligible voters commit perjury.

But Texas Republicans won't go for that, House Elections Chairman Todd Smith, R-Euless, said Monday after his committee received reports about voter fraud in Texas.

Texas lawmakers will have to deal with a multibillion-dollar state budget shortfall, contentious redistricting and growing problems with school funding next year - and a strict voter ID bill will again poison the atmosphere, Democrats warned.

Priority for Republicans
Republican state senators changed Senate rules last year to get around Democratic opposition and approve a voter ID bill. House Democrats responded late in the session by stalling legislation to kill it.

Texas Republican Party delegates again marked voter ID as a legislative priority in the platform they adopted Saturday.

Of 267 alleged election code violations referred to the attorney general's office during the past eight years, 35 have been resolved with guilty pleas or dismissals and 12 remain active, special assistant attorney general Jay Dyer told Smith's committee. About half of those cases involved mail-in ballots - not voter impersonation that a photo ID would try to address.

20 million votes, 24 cases
Texas and 26 other states require some form of voter identification, Texas elections director Ann McGeehan told the panel. Her office has referred 24 election code cases for possible prosecution over the past two years. Two involved voter impersonation allegations, she said.

More than 20 million votes have been cast in Texas general elections since 2002, she said.

Republican opposition to an affidavit system rather than a voter ID requirement "speaks to their intention," said Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, a member of the House Elections Committee. "It's hard for me to believe that there's a willingness to do anything but have less people vote."

Anchia warned that if Republicans "try to cram it down like last session at the expense of Texas voting rights, we will have to oppose that with everything that we've got."

The Dallas Democrat said any effort to enhance ballot security "should be coupled with a commensurate effort at increasing turnout and strengthening democracy."

Also: http://www.dallasblog.com/201009021007019/dallas-blog/suspicious-timing-of-texas-voting-machines-fire.html

Suspicious Timing of Texas Voting Machines’ Fire        

by Tom McGregor     Thu, Sep 2, 2010

On August 28, a fire destroyed almost all of Harris County’s (Houston-area) electronic voting machines. Yet, the timing appears suspicious since the Lone Star Report, a well-respected newsletter on state politics in Texas, posted an article a day earlier (Aug. 27), that, “voter irregularities abound in Harris County.”


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Sep 2010)

Old News, but speaking of the Glen Beck August event, the following was sent to me by a retired USAF senior officer:

Glenn Beck had been trying for weeks to get a military fly-over with fighter jets to start the event, but the White House blocked it saying it was "restricted airspace". The rally started at 10:00 am, but at precisely 9:59am, God gave us His fly-over that could not have been better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2-QQoehT8c

Canadian fly - over!


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2010)

Daily Kos advocates manipulating search engines to affect the next election (and by implication every election to come). I can see this sort of thing happening in Canadian elections as well, as the "Progressives" seek to counter the growing influence of the Blogosphere:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/8/1202/96710



> *A different way to make a big difference in 2010*
> 
> by Chris Bowers
> Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 09:00:04 AM PDT
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Oct 2010)

Looks like The Donald may be interested in taking a swing in 2012 for the Republicans, (WAY to many articles out there about this, to post them all, but it is definately garnering ALOT of attentions.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/China-is-ripping-America-Donald-Trump/articleshow/6707117.cms
http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconnor/2010/10/07/is-mike-bloomberg-behind-the-new-hampshire-trump-for-president-poll/
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/donald-trump-admits-he-could-run-for-us-president-20101006-166m4.html?autostart=1
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=Donald+Trump&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dRmdVt-v06b4RmM9zxmANAo2k6bWM&ei=T2CwTOWzA4f9nAfxhpmMBg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=4&ved=0CFQQqgIoADAD


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2010)

Interesting piece about Governor Palin. If she intends to run in 2012, she should consider point five very carefully, and find a positive way to frame the message:



> Five myths about Sarah Palin
> 
> By Matthew Continetti
> Sunday, October 17, 2010
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2010)

The November election and the one in 2012 is a reaction to the extreme policies of the democrat party. Ultimately this election is pitting two groups of people those that hate America vs those who love America. Two years ago the media and the unions got Obama elected. Can they save Obama and the democrats ? Can the union bosses control their members ? I dont think they can.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Oct 2010)

It makes me wonder who is really running the USA. Now that Mr. Obama is the President, are decision briefs so "brief", are matters of state so few, etc, that the President can spend almost every day visiting some place, on TV? 
I realize that some work of state must be conducted on Air Force One after preparation of political speeches.
The crews of the Air Force One Sqn, Secret Service must be exhausted.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Oct 2010)

Obama has alot of free time because he isnt interested in fixing the problems he has created, he is content to let the economy fester.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2010)

Check out this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&feature=player_embedded


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Oct 2010)

The Tea Party movement is all about purging RINO's from office and replacing them with conservative candidates. It will take several election cycles to accomplsih this aim. At the sametime conservatives are intent turning out democrats who seem to be in lock step with Obama's marxist agenda.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2010)

You really do have to check out this chart.  It makes the Afghanistan chart look like Kindergarten stuff.

It is all explained here.

It is also a clear demonstration of why there is no hope of government EVER being able to control outcomes.  Long Live Hayek eh? (Him. Not Her).

PS - Tomahawk 6:  IIRC 2 years ago you were predicting that the GOP would flip a hundred seats in the House this year.  Put any money on that one recently?


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Oct 2010)

;D

No money and 100 seats may be too much but the GOP will run the House and quite possibly the Senate as well. Obama will try to avoid going to Congress as much as possible. But with the power of the purse the GOP could defund much of Obama's agenda. The democrats ignored the will of the people on Health Care,stimulus spending,the takeover of the car companies and other private sector companies.Now its time to pay the piper. The GOP ignored their principles in 2006 and they lost their majorities in 06 and 08,culminating with Obama's election.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2010)

And if the TEA party should fail, some musical consolation:

Strong and peaceful, wise and brave,
Fighting the fight for the whole world to save,
We the people will ceaselessly strive
To keep our great revolution alive!
Unfurl the banners! Look at the screen!
Never before has such glory been seen!

Oceania! Oceania! Oceania, 'tis for thee!
Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee!
Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee!
Every deed, every thought, 'tis for thee!


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2010)

I can remember reading about a "permanent Republican majority" in 2000 and 2004; but as one of the commentator posts, it is all about the performance of the Congress. The Republican majority became corrupt and unresponsive, and paid for it. Now it is the turn of the Democrat party. It remains to be seen if the newly aroused American public will remain engaged and prevent the new crop of politicians from drifting into this mode, or it the TEA party movement will make good on their promise to use the electoral process to capture school boards, civic governments, State legislatures and the entire spectrum of government to capture control of the mechanisms of the State:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/10/29/the-disappearance-of-the-the-emerging-democratic-majority-the-failure-of-a-thesis/



> *The Disappearance of the The Emerging Democratic Majority: The Failure of a Thesis*
> 
> Posted By Ron Radosh On October 29, 2010 @ 4:37 pm In Uncategorized | 34 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2010)

Attack ads today are really wimpy....try these


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2010)

".....but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil...." Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 (Penguin 2004)



> •Is divided government what works – and what Americans want? Many recall the 1990s, with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans running Congress, with some nostalgia, as the two parties prevented either from undertaking massive initiatives, and the private economy grew. We saw welfare reform, a capital-gains tax reduction, free trade initiatives and a budget surplus.
> One scholar observed in a recent editorial board that when government is divided, the free market is a little more free, to the benefit of all. Divided government may neutralize the worst impulses of each party – Republicans are less apt to enact a pro-business agenda of subsidies and incentives, and Democrats are less likely to overregulate and micromanage.


 Orange County Register Editorial, Oct 29

Gridlock - the rational response to government

It prevents progressives from progressing and elites of all stripes (business, media, academic, religious, union....) from acting.

In a democratic society all that is necessary to achieve minimalist government is for people to keep voting in new checks and balances.   As soon as other folks figure out how to "game the system" and establish themselves as "elites" and start "acting" all that is required of fans of minimalist government (Paine, Burke, Jefferson, Jackson, Thoreau, Prudhon, Rand, Thucydides...) is that they "lock them up" by ensuring that the government is held in balance and checked by an equally weighted opposition.

And when people figure out how to square the circle and control both government and the opposition then the solution is to start swinging.  

As parties no longer represent any cohesive philosophy it doesn't matter which party you vote for.  It only matters that you vote for somebody who hasn't been in office, father and son, for 77 years  Representative George Dingell according to George Will.

Why are Democrats and Republicans so frustrated? ....having such a hard time determining what the message should be and who would make the ideal leader?  Because that silent, apathetic, non-voting, mushy Thoreauvian  middle, that just wants to be left alone to drink beer by a pond, has finally found a reason to vote.  And what are they voting for?  "Nothing".  "It just doesn't matter" what the message of the parties is, so long as they are not allowed to do anything.

With any luck at all Britain and Europe with come to the same conclusions and just start "swinging away".


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2010)

I see Margaret Wente  heading along the same line of thought (But she's better at it).

The rest of the quote from Thomas Paine:

"...in its (government's) worst state an intolerable one (evil); for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a governent, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting the we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Or put succinctly:" This lot are worse than nothing and we're paying them for the privilege of doing it to us."


Rational response? Buh Bye.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2010)

I think _gridlock_ will serve the economy well in 2011/12. New discretionary spending will be very difficult but, equally, so will any cuts to the eventually unsustainable entitlements.

But _gridlock_ may serve Obama well in 2012. It may become obvious that the Republicans, with or without the Tea Party, have no useful answers and Americans may well decide to trust the devil they know rather than one they don't.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think _gridlock_ will serve the economy well in 2011/12. New discretionary spending will be very difficult but, equally, so will any cuts to the eventually unsustainable entitlements.
> 
> But _gridlock_ may serve Obama well in 2012. *It may become obvious that the Republicans*, with or without the Tea Party, *have no useful answers* and Americans  may well decide to trust the devil they know rather than one they don't.



I expect that to be the case...in which case they may just continue to vote against the incumbent and thereby ensure gridlock in perpetuity.

That might not be such a bad strategy: a steady turnover of single term politicians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2010)

Except that, eventually, the Americans, just as the Brits are now doing, must come to grips with both taxing - they need a lot more and it doesn't matter what Americans or their elected leaders say, the former are in denial and the latter are all cowards - and spending - they need a lot less, beginning with the Pentagon - and ditto.

I don't know when the piper is to be paid, probably while I am still alive - and I'm pushing 70.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Except that, eventually, the Americans, just as the Brits are now doing, must come to grips with both taxing - they need a lot more and it doesn't matter what Americans or their elected leaders say, the former are in denial and the latter are all cowards - and spending - they need a lot less, beginning with the Pentagon - and ditto.
> 
> I don't know when the piper is to be paid, probably while I am still alive - and I'm pushing 70.



No disagreement with any of the above.... and I expect you may see it long before you hit 80.

Cheers, Sir.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2010)

The big difference between the US and Britain is the size of the economy. Once the economy gets rolling it will generate alot more revenue without raising taxes. I am sure you remember the term Reagonomics ? Overtaxation can stifle an economy just look at Europe.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2010)

An important note we have all overlooked; the non elected bureaucracy will become a formidable opponent of the TEA party and other limited/good government movements. How they can be delt with will be the defining issue over the next few election cycles:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/10/31/aftermath/



> *Aftermath*
> 
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On October 31, 2010 @ 2:07 pm In Uncategorized | 70 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The big difference between the US and Britain is the size of the economy. Once the economy gets rolling it will generate alot more revenue without raising taxes. I am sure you remember the term Reagonomics ? Overtaxation can stifle an economy just look at Europe.




I remember Reaganomocs very well; I also remember both the domestic and global financial situations 25 or so years ago and, in my opinion those situations are quite different. Clinton and Bush spent everything Reagan _earned_ and then Bush decided to live on borrowed money. The biggest difference between Reagan, Bush 41 and even Clinton and Bush/Obama is debt. America is deeply in debt, which it has been before, *to outsiders*, which is a new situation. In past situations when America ran huge deficits it was indebted, mainly, to itself and it could manage its own future; now America's future is mortgaged and the mortgage holders are in Asia.

America is in denial because the American people are unwilling to face their own harsh realities. The national _leadership_ is totally and completely broken and neither the Tea Party nor Colbert/Stewart will help. Unemployment is, most likely, going to stay at around 10% for a few more years - eating away at small businesses and, thereby, costing even more jobs. If unemployment goes to 12% then the US economy will, likely dip back into yet another severe recession with an even slower recovery.

America needs Margaret Thatcher; it's got _Goofey_: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. Good things are not on the horizon - not anytime soon, anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2010)

> A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP
> Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves


Scott Rasmussen

In my view Rasmussen has it nailed.

It has become like a game of teeter-totter.  Two people on a teeter-totter and the game lasts indefinitely.  They alternate up and down in perfect balance and harmony and mobile stasis is achieved.  A third person shows up to play.  They can't sit down at either end because that stops the toing and froing.  One side is anchored firmly on the deck while the other is stuck up in the air with legs dangling and no way to influence the game.  The third person sits in the middle.  There they sit watching the other two go up and down.  No fun. No influence.  Then they start swaying and they realize that the swings are getting harder and faster.  They have influence after all.  They stand up and start actively driving the swings.  They drive the swings harder until somebody is bounced off with a sore butt.  Game over.  No swinging......until they move over to take up the vacant seat and the game starts all over again.

This is the "third party" and the "disenfranchised" and the "apathetic" discovering that they can influence the game.  Perot's people were kept off the teeter-totter.  For a while they and many others sat at the point of balance.  A couple of elections ago they started swaying.  Now they are standing up and actively swinging.  And somebody is going to be bounced off with a sore butt.

As to the need to do "something" to save the economy....I am not convinced.  I am of the opinion that we have people fighting for control over which direction should be taken with no-one having any clear understanding of the impact of their actions or any clear understanding of what is happening.  Under those circumstances it is time to follow the advice of my father (an old dairy engineer)  who said that you should not be afraid to "let the milk run on the floor".  Even though spilt milk costs money it is only while it is spilling that you get a chance to diagnose the situation.  Only then can you see what path the milk is actually following.  If you are pressing buttons in a panic you have no clue what is happening or what you are doing.  When you accidentally hit one buttton that stops the spillage you don't know if that was the right one or the only one.  It may have only masked the underlying problem which will reappear when yo start up again .... with more spilt milk and tears.

If you don't know what you are doing the best thing to do is do nothing.  Just sit back and watch.

In my view, and I suspect the view of a whole bunch of those swing voters in the States and Toronto the problem is too many people trying to do too many things all at the same time with no clear understanding of the effects of their actions.  Better to give them a timeout for a while, take them away from the controls and pray.  Maybe by the next election we will have a clearer picture of the underlying economy. 

Too many of the world's "leader's" are following the headless chicken lesson plan: 

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2010)

America's (and the world's) 'economy' will save itself; it always does. There will be necessary and, in some cases, uncomfortable corrections in all regions and in all sectors: Europe first; then America and finally Asia. The 'prize' is measured in jobs. Jobs are essential for general prosperity and social harmony. The 'best' jobs are both reasonably secure and well paying. In the first half of the 21st century the best jobs will be in sectors that require a well (not just adequately) educated and flexible workforce. These jobs are not 'location sensitive' they can just as easily be in Canada or China or Chile.

What governments can do is, in no particular order:

1. Make education work better - higher, *much* higher, standards in everything, not just maths and science. A _creative_ society has a very, very strong arts and humanities base upon which its science and technology rests. Education must be affordable for *most* people - not necessarily 'free,' just affordable. Education is more than a _right_ it is a civic duty.

2. Invest in R&D - government *direct* investments should be in *R*esearch: in chemistry, not chemical engineering; in biology, not bio-technology. Corporations should get tax breaks for investing in *D*evelopment. Our universities are the 'jewel in the (educational) crown' and R&D is one of the ways good universities become great. R&D is cheap, but we, Canada, should spend invest *orders of magnitude* more than we do now in it.

3. Make _continuous learning_ a reality - workers and managers should always be being trained for the next job, the next opportunity. Nowhere is this more important than in low level and middle managers - there are, broadly, too many of them because they are inadequately qualified. Fewer _managers_ doing more/better work will make everyone more productive.

This will cost money. It should come, first of all, through reductions in _most_ social spending, medical care and old age security excepted - for purely political reasons. Education should be the biggest and most important component of provincial spending, displacing medical care. That means that new (*private*) money must be injected into Canada's national health care system so that tax money can be diverted from medical care to education - where it will do more good. The next source 'of 'new' money is a tax: a carbon tax paid, à la the HST, by the end user - you and me - every time we fill our gas tanks, turn up the thermostat or watch our big-screen TV. Further 'new' money will, eventually, come from a growing economy.

For the USA, specifically, any new money for education and R&D can be found only after the national deficit is beaten down to zero and the national debt is reduced to something akin to 25% of GDP:





http://athensboy.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/prez-chills-keeps-change/

And I'm talking the *real* debt, not the unfunded liabilities.

By contrast, Canada's debt is _estimated_ (in 2010) at about (below?) 30% of GDP - not great but close. But Canada's *total* public debt is, probably, closer to 75% of GDP and the USA's (and China's) is probably more like 90 to 110% of GDP, and growing too quickly.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2010)

Fortunately much of the so called stimulus hasnt been spent. A GOP Congress could do the country a big favor by sending that money back to the Treasury.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2010)

T6, I think there you have the answer to Thucydides's bureaucratic concerns.

Take a look at this article  from the Telegraph. It discusses the fact that the UK will spend more money on the European Foreign Service than on the Foreign Office and thus the "best and brightest" (IMHO the most successful and thus highly credentialled gamers of the system) will leave UK service for EU service.  'Twas ever thus: the scribes follow the paymaster whether Pharaoh, Pope, King, Dictator or Labour Government.

In the US your constitution follows from the English "constitution" that presupposes the necessary evil of a governing King.  The King (The President) chooses his government, including all the senior bureaucrats and governs at his pleasure for the duration.  However Parliament (Commons and Lords, Representatives and Senators) controls the purse.   The King can have his scribes write all the regulations they like but if Parliament don't vote the cash there will be no coppers to enforce the regulations and possibly none to pay the scribes......How does a two year furlough sound?


ERC: I take your point on "Knowledge" - broadly described.  Could we frame it though in a discussion between knowledge and credentials?  I  believe (despite having had a specialist education myself) that all education should first and foremost be General - Back to the Liberal Arts - where  Newton's Calculus was equally weighted with  Darius's Highways and where Sonnets were equally weighted with Curie... 

Credentials serve the needs of the scribes and Pharaoh.  It turns all levels of "education" into a glorified "Trades School" that encourages memorization of those things necessary to pass the test established by the guild of scribes to gain the credentials to gain the job to achieve a lifetime of security.  In the name of "quality control", in the interests of "public safety", it does nothing to teach people how to think and how to convert bright ideas into useful creations.

Neither James Watt nor Bill Gates were credentialled.  Although Watt's engines blew up and Gates systems crashed the benefits they gave society far outweighed the risks associated with their products hence their reputations were enhanced......Their customers took personal responsibility and accepted the risk of failure and placed a bet.  Tehy were willing to "Let the Deed Shaw".  

It is not just the need to improve opportunities for people to learn.  It is also necessary to break the power of the guilds of scribes.  (And the easiest way to do that is starve them out  >).


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2010)

Just came back from an interesting and hilarious presentation by Mark Styen, who peppered the jokes and songs with many uncomfortable truths, some of which speak to the issues at hand:

Bureaucratic stasis. Regulatory overkill among other factors has reduced the rate of change and innovation. A person from the 1890's would be astonished by the technological advances in 1950, but equally stunned to see few fundamental changes between 1950 and 2010.

Enforced infantileization. People not leaving school until their late 20's, and not really being forced to take responsibility for their lives until fairly late in life. Obamacare is a wonderful example; "children" can stay on their parents health insurance until age 26(!). 

Education: The generation which placed men on the moon had a median education of 8th grade, which means a much greater proportion of the work force was, you know, _working_ starting at a much earlier age. Edward's point about education is well worth noting, but this means a real education, not "gender studies", and especially not being locked away in school until you are closing on 30. Perhaps we should encourage people to get out of high school, get a job/join the army/learn a trade and invest in continuing education/trades training as they gain life experience.

The Demographic recession. Banks were a conduit for people with capital (mostly older people who had saved and accumulated capital) to lend to people with ideas (generally younger people). While an oversimplification of sorts, the truth is that banks look for places to invest their money, and if there are no people close to home, they start going afield, to places they have less knowledge and understanding. German banks have about a trillion dollars of American mortgage "instruments", for example). Other demographic factors are also in play, fewer people raising families need fewer houses, leading to a glut in the housing market and huge drop in housing values.

If you believe any of these things (and don't forget, Mark Styen is the guy who characterized China's "one child" policy as leading to China becoming the "first gay superpower since Sparta", so there is some exaggeration for effect), then there are serious problems which are _NOT_ going to be resolved by the election of a Republican Congress tomorrow, or any other day.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2010)

While repealing Obamacare might not be possible until 2013, there are steps the new Congress can take, read about it here


----------



## jhk87 (4 Nov 2010)

With regards to the above discussion on education, innovation, etc., I think there are a couple of themes which should be explored.

One - before we generalise university education, we should re-invigorate high schools. The idea that everyone has to pass has made a high school diploma virtually useless on its own forcing people to pay large tuitions at universities which are becoming overtaxed with the "demand" for education and increasingly run like corporate entities. Because of the emerge of private universities in the US, even a BA is, well, less useful than it could be south of the 49th. I happened to have the extreme good fortune of growing up in Quebec with the excellent CEGEP system, which made the secondary education quite useful.

Two - Commodification of knowledge. I agree completely that things are becoming way too focused on the idea of "credentials." This could be construed as a gross exaggeration of rationalist Fordism, because unpackaged knowledge is extremely difficult to judge and is therefore "inefficient." Higher education needs to get back to its roots, teaching people to do original research and judging people on the quality of what they produce.

Three - Leave universities to their own curricula. There is a strange tendency, most pronounced in the UK, for the government to apply less and less funding to universities while at the same time demanding tighter controls over curricula in order to ensure that credits are transferable. You won't always agree with what is produced, but in the end, it's probably for our benefit that someone sits and thinks and writes on complex problems (including, for example, women's studies) for long periods. Although continuing education is a good idea (and something I'd like to engage in,) it pays to have people in ivory towers.

Four - Let kids be kids. We need a cultural change away from the obsession with safety. It's stifling. And we also need to stop doping kids up on mind-altering drugs at the first sign of hyperacitivty. This will allow a greater range of experience.

An aside - 

Although the world may not have seemed to change as drasitically between 1950 and 2010 as it did between 1890 and 1950, much of this has to do with viewpoints. The Industrial Revolution and the birth of mass capitalism in the late Victorian era exposed some very large cracks in Western culture - such as the generally bad state of the working class, the remnants of aristoratic privilege, problems created by racism, the "non-personhood" of women and the concentration of political and economic power. So while major projects may have seemed far more impressive earlier - culminating, say, in the launch of Apollo 11, other very important changes have taken place since then but are far less recognisable (like a general improvement in the standard of living, the end of segregation, aparhteid and empire, and the absence of a major inter-state war.)


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2010)

The election results were even more compelling since the Republicans won many State legislatures and Governorships as well. Redistricting and State initiatives to derail Washington's "command economy" approach will be the order of the day for the next two years, and redistricting to undo gerrymandered districts will change the balance of power for decades to come.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Republican-victory-was-wide-and-deep-1442653-106640883.html



> *Examiner Editorial: Republican victory was wide and deep*
> Examiner Editorial
> 
> November 3, 2010
> ...


----------



## jhk87 (4 Nov 2010)

The greatest form of "command economy" in the US is massive, often superflous military spending fuelled by delegates looking for money in their home ridings. And who ballooned military spending? Republicans.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> And who ballooned military spending? Republicans.



With the help of a Democrat congress. An example ?

C-17s that even the USAF did not want and were forced upon it by a Democrat-controlled congress. The cause of balooning spending resides with both parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> The greatest form of "command economy" in the US is massive, often superflous military spending fuelled by delegates looking for money in their home ridings. And who ballooned military spending? Republicans.




Actually, post Second World War defence spending in the USA "ballooned" under Truman, a Democrat. Under Eisenhower and Nixon, both Republicans, it declined precipitously (Eisenhower) and then steadily (Nixon). Now I agree that defence spending did rise (possibly too quickly) under Reagan,* Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama - but that's three GOP and two Democrats, it hardly justifiers your broad brush.

__________
* But Reagan _may_ have actually planned to simply force the USSR to either keep up and make the people eat grass or collapse under the inherent contradictions of socialism.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2010)

Another demographic "shift" bites the dust:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001848-the-smackdown-of-the-creative-class

[/quote]
*The Smackdown Of The Creative Class*
by Joel Kotkin 11/03/2010
donkey.jpg

Two years ago I hailed Barack Obama’s election as “the triumph of the creative class.” Yesterday everything reversed, as middle-class Americans smacked down their putative new ruling class of highly educated urbanistas and college town denizens.

More than anything, this election marked a shift in American class dynamics. In 2008 President Obama managed to win enough middle-class, suburban voters to win an impressive victory. This year, those same voters deserted, rejecting policies more geared to the “creative class” than mainstream America.

A term coined by urban guru Richard Florida, “the creative class” also covers what David Brooks more cunningly calls “bourgeois bohemians"--socially liberal, well-educated, predominately white, upper middle-class voters. They are clustered largely in expensive urban centers, along the coasts, around universities and high-tech regions. To this base, Obama can add the welfare dependents, virtually all African-Americans, and the well-organized legions of public employees.

These are the groups for whom Obama's persona and policies pack the greatest appeal. Since Obama took office, the prime beneficiary of fiscal and monetary policies has been Wall Street, which has seen a nice 30% rise in the market and record bonuses. Large corporations, which are largely financed by stocks and bonds, have seen their profits soar over 40%, in part due to access to easy money.

The financial boomlet is most marked in key creative class strongholds such as Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco, as well as their surrounding, super-affluent suburbs. The largesse benefits not only the traders, but the high-priced lawyers, accountants and publicists serving the financial elite. It has also benefited the high-end consumer industry, including the arts, which support much of the creative class. Not surpisingly, the Democrats scored well in these areas last night despite the GOP tide.

The creative class also has benefited from the lavish expenditures of public funds to major universities for research. This has lifted the prospects of the professoriate at the elite colleges from which Obama takes much of his advice. Finally the administration has rewarded its friends and funders among Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Once self-described paragons of entrepreneurial risk-taking, they increasingly search out government incentives and subsidies to pay for their large bets on renewable energy technology.

In contrast, the traditional middle class has not fared well at all. This group consists of virtually everyone who earns the national household median income of $50,000 or somewhat above. They tend to be white, concentrated outside the coasts (except along the Gulf), suburban and politically independent. In 2008 they divided their votes, allowing Obama, with his huge urban, minority and youth base, to win easily.

Since Obama's inauguration all the economic statistics vital to their lives--job creation, family income, housing prices--have been stagnant or negative. Not surprising then that suburbanites, small businesspeople and middle-income workers walked out on the Democrats last night. They did not do so because they loved the Republicans but because the majority either fears unemployment or already have lost their jobs. Many were employed in the industries such as manufacturing and construction hardest hit in the recession; it has not escaped their attention that Obama’s public-sector allies, paid with their taxes, have remained not only largely unscathed, but much better compensated.

Of course, few on the progressive left--more expressive of a dictatorship of the professoriate than that of the proletariat--seem likely to confront these class realities. Many will ascribe last night's disaster to the dunderheadness of the American people, or to the clever venality of the right. Certainly some tea party candidates, inexperienced and untested, did appear incapable of passing a high school civics test. But the results had less to do with Karl Rove's money than the Democrats disconnect with the middle class.

The real problem for the Democrats lies with fundamental demographics. The middle class is a huge proportion of the population. Thirty-five million households earn between $50,000 and $100,000 a year; close to another 15 million have incomes between $100,000 and $150,000. Together these households overwhelm the number of poor households as well as the highly affluent.

In contrast, the "creative class" represents a relatively small grouping. Some define this group as upward of 40% of the workforce--largely by dint of having a four-year college degree--but this seems far too broad. The creative class is often seen as sharing the hip values of the Bobo crowd. Lumping an accountant with two kids in suburban Detroit or Atlanta with a childless SoHo graphic artist couple seems disingenuous at best. In reality the true creative class, notes demographer Bill Frey, may constitute no more than 5% of the total.

At the same time, this affluent constituency may be more than offset by another more traditional upper class. This consists of people closely tied to such basic sectors as agriculture, fossil fuel production, suburban home-builders and the aerospace industry. These voters have, for the most part, remained solidly Republican for generations, and but many followed the “creative class” into the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008. Last night this part of the upper class shifted back toward their political home.

But the real decider--to use George W. Bush’s unfortunate phrase--remains the much larger, more amorphous middle class. Given the economy of the past two years, the subsequent alienation of this group should pose no mystery. Suburban swing voters didn’t suddenly turn into racists or right-wing cranks. Instead they have seen, correctly, that Obama's economic policy has to date worked to the advantage of others far more than themselves or their families. Until the Democrats and Obama can prove that they once again can serve the interests of these voters, they will continue to struggle to recapture the optimism so appropriate two years ago.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010. 
[/quote]


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has lashed out at the incoming US Congress according to this article (amongst others), reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _gothamist_:

http://gothamist.com/2010/11/09/bloomberg_congress_can_read_but_the.php 


> Bloomberg: Okay, Congress Can Read, But They're Still Stupid
> 
> At the C40 conference in Hong Kong over the weekend, Mayor Bloomberg made a few controversial statements. First, he told Americans to stop blaming the Chinese and "take a look at ourselves," and then ranted, “If you look at the U.S., you look at who we’re electing to Congress, to the Senate—they can’t read. I’ll bet you a bunch of these people don’t have passports...nobody knows where China is." Foot, meet mouth. So yesterday, Bloomberg tried to clarify his point: "It isn't that I said they can't read in a sense they don't understand the words. They don't understand the history." Controversy over!
> 
> The increasingly peevish Bloomberg said he would continue to speak bluntly about the state of the country, and what he believes is a failure to tackle important issues. "I don't think that this country is facing the issues that really are the ones that we need to face if we are going to have a future," he said, mentioning the immigration system and the deficit. "We cannot continue to do this, and I will continue to speak out, and I think when I look at the efforts that the C40 countries are making, a lot of them are doing things we should be doing," he said.




He's right, of course, he's also an ex-Republican and no friend of the Tea Party. Bloomberg for president, as what? And independent? He's got bags of money, more brains than Obama and Palin combined and some actual, useful, executive experience. Hmmm.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2010)

If he can curb his tongue a bit he might even get some traction running up the middle.  A "Neutral" President in a divided and partisan legislature.....He has stature that Perot never had.  

Be interesting to see if it would sell.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2010)

Bloomberg if he were a republican would be termed a RINO. RINO why vote for a RINO when you could have a real socialist just by voting for a democrat ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bloomberg if he were a republican would be termed a RINO. RINO why vote for a RINO when you could have a real socialist just by voting for a democrat ?




By that definition both Eisenhower and Nixon, certainly, and, arguably, Reagan and Bush Sr. were RINOs.

A Republican Party based on values that exclude Eisenhower and Bloomberg *guarantees* decades of Democratic primacy* followed by the emergence of a new party that espouses sensible, fiscally responsible, neo-liberal policies.


__________
* My guess is that most _Tea Partiers_ will fail in the 2011/12 Congress; the few survivors will either be absorbed into the establishment Republicans or will, with the failures, form a neo-conservative rump. The Democrats may, likely will, be able exploit Tea Party failures to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2012.

Tea Party failures in the Congress will be felt most keenly by the most ardent Tea Party supporters who will be dismayed that their elected favourites cannot or, more likely will not, take necessary, hard decisions.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2010)

While the TEA party movement may be pleased with the results of this election, other people are not. Watch this MSNBC piece where the guest actually calls for an armed revolution against the TEA party movement and the officials they elected. (Given what we know about American culture, gun ownership and so on, I suspect this is exactly the wrong way of going about it): 


http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/09/racist-cartoonist-ted-rall-calls-for-violent-revolt-against-right-msnbc-not-opposed-to-idea/

Edward is correct that the new crop of Republican Congressmen and Senators will have an exceptionally difficult time, but I would not be inclined to write them off quite so easily. Some procedural manoeuvres (such as ensuring there are no appropriations released for Obamacare or regulatory agencies which are trying to legislate by fiat) will allow them to reach some of their goals of smaller government, less regulation, lower taxation. Will this be enough to satisfy their base? Will the TEA party movement remained organized and cohesive enough to monitor their new representatives and prepare for the 2012 elections? 

Many questions to answer. We _will_ live in interestig times.


----------



## GAP (10 Nov 2010)

But ER might be more right than wrong.....was there not a move to have Independents elected when the Ross Peru fever was on....that died pretty quick.....


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2010)

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) talks to two TEA Party movement activists about the future of the TEA party here.

Interesting conversation, the question now is will they retain their focus and motivation until 2012 (2014, 2016 etc.), and will they remain flexible and adaptable enough to both remain relevant and to fend off attacks byn opposition politicians, the Legacy media and so on?


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Nov 2010)

I serve on the executive committee of a local Tea Party. My group chose not to endorse any candidate, as did many groups.  I think the media (and much of the public) are crediting the "Tea Party" with too much structure, and too much concentrated effort. The Tea Party is not a party, and frankly, never wants to be one. It is a movement born of frustration with both parties. Generally speaking, "Tea Partiers" are new to politics, conservative, for smaller government, accountability of elected representatives regardless of party. We are tired of the "same old thing". For the most part, we believe the closer we stick to the Constitution, the better. I have seen or heard no racist utterances at a Tea Party meeting. It may surprise some that the person who usually sits next to my wife adn I every week is an African-American, lady Democrat . She's there for the same reasons as I am - she's working through her own party to achieve the same goals. Anyone who thinks "Tea Party" candidates are going to have an easy time of it are mistaken. The newest round of elected candidates will be scrutinized more than their predecessors, Republican or not. We're not all Beck disciples or Rushbaugh or Savage.  Rather, we may read Thomas Sowell, or Ayn Rand or F. A Hayek. I've rambled a bit and probably didn't make much of a point, so I'll try one more. There is a tendency in  the media and by pundits to lump the Tea Party into a united force. I don't think it's that simple, and in regards to what I read in the mainstream media - I have seen virtually none of it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Nov 2010)

If TEA party movement people form a "rump", it is much more likely to be a proper conservative (classical liberal) one than a neo-conservative one.  There isn't much crossover between TP enthusiasts and neo-cons.

The TP failures get plenty of airtime compared to the successes, so as soon as the most egregious mistakes end it should not be surprising if the movement appears to fade away.  Ultimately The TP and established wings of the Republican party have to work together if they don't want to risk the much less appealing route of splitting the vote.  It will suit Democrats and establishment Republicans alike to herald the demise of the TP movement, but the objective measure of success will be whether the collective political stance shifts slightly rightward or not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... the objective measure of success will be whether the collective political stance shifts slightly rightward or not.




The data I have seen over the past few years suggests, to me anyway, that:

1. _Traditionally_, America is a _relatively_ 'right of centre' society - respecting, even celebrating individual achievement. Property rights have taken a beating since 1865, but, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. Singapore) that has been a global problem; and

2. America, from Ronald Reagan onwards, has shifted, slowly but steadily, to the right. Even Clinton ran as a "new Democrat," a codeword for the "Boll Weevils" of the 1980s who, during Clinton's administration, became the modern "Blue Dog Democrats."


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Nov 2010)

> The TP and established wings of the Republican party have to work together



One of the strategies of Tea Party groups is to become more active in their party of choice. The Precinct Committeman has been called the most powerful elected office in the country. Many allotted PC spots are empty, and it is fairly easy to become a Precinct Committeeman. Once active at the local level as a PC, members can influence which candidates go to state and national conventions, and can work towards having more conservative candidates elected. I can tell you this effort has been felt by the "Old Guard" of the parties.

http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/brochures/precinct-committman.shtml


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Nov 2010)

Creating a presence in an established party is the only sensible route.  The alternative is the vote-splitting hell conservatives in Canada created.  Since there is only one party remotely close to TP principles, the choice seems obvious.  The low-level work lays the foundation, but doesn't draw much media attention.  As long as one or two shit magnets can be thrown up as sacrifice candidates each electoral cycle to draw all the media and commentary fire, the TP should be quietly successful.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2010)

Conservatives may have created their own problems after Kim Campbell's PC party was wiped off the map, but now vote splitting is done on the political Left. I sometimes wonder why the NDP, as the largest and most organized socialist party doesn't split the "orange" Liberal rump and work to absorb the BQ and Green parties. "The Socialist Alliance Party" would probably have enough seats (based on the current parliament) to be a minority government and draw enough of the voting population (@ 66% of Canadians vote for "left wing" parties) to become Canada's "Natural Ruling Party"

While this scenario is pretty frightening (imagine a political party/machine which could actually pass legislation like the "Green Shift", universal daycare and send the Armed Forces to Darfur, while simultaniously shutting down Alberta's energy economy), this seems to be what 66% of the voting public actually wants. Good thing my wife has family in Texas.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Conservatives may have created their own problems after Kim Campbell's PC party was wiped off the map, but now vote splitting is done on the political Left. I sometimes wonder why the NDP, as the largest and most organized socialist party doesn't split the "orange" Liberal rump and work to absorb the BQ and Green parties. "The Socialist Alliance Party" would probably have enough seats (based on the current parliament) to be a minority government and draw enough of the voting population (@ 66% of Canadians vote for "left wing" parties) to become Canada's "Natural Ruling Party"
> 
> While this scenario is pretty frightening (imagine a political party/machine which could actually pass legislation like the "Green Shift", universal daycare and send the Armed Forces to Darfur, while simultaniously shutting down Alberta's energy economy), this seems to be what 66% of the voting public actually wants. Good thing my wife has family in Texas.



First off, the BQ is there only to protect Quebec's interests;' allowing itself to be absorbed into an English national party would be political suicide. As for "66% of Canadians voting for left wing" parties," I suspect a lot of people who vote socialist (e.g. NDP) do so as a protest vote. If there actually was a Socialist Alliance Party that had a chance of winning the vote they would likely vote for someone else or stay home.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2010)

The NDP is a "Social Democratic" party while then BQ is a National Socialist party; they have some common interests, so the NDP is the most logical choice for BQ supporters looking to move up.

As well, demographic changes are moving more and more Canadians west, it is projected the 2014 apportition will create enough new seats in the West to make it possible to win a majority government without carrying Quebec. Once the BQ is no longer able to play the spoiler role, there will be some pressure to move to a national party in order to keep a seat at the table. Once again, moving from a National Socialist party to a Social democratic party is the easiest transition.

Moving the discussion back to the American political arena, creating "Big Tents" has always been the American way, once the tent got too small, the party collapsed and vanished (like the Federalists and the Whigs), or never grew to critical mass (Ross Perot).


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Nov 2010)

Who ever is President when gdp growth is over 3% gets a second term. When it is below they always lose. Obama is toast. As is the US economy.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

And why not.....as former First Lady, Senator, Diplomat, etc. she is at the stage in life where she can stop accumulating a nest egg, do the rubber chicken circuit at $40,000 a hit, with none of the hokey rules.....

 Hillary Clinton plans to leave public service
Article Link
 The Daily Telegraph December 4, 2010

 Hillary Clinton said on Friday that her current job as U.S. Secretary of State would be her last in public office, appearing to draw a curtain on her long-held ambition to emulate her husband by serving in the nation's highest post.

She said that after travelling the globe as America's top diplomat, she foresaw a return to her roots as an advocate for women's and children's issues.

In recent weeks Clinton has repeatedly laughed off questions about her presidential ambitions, which have become the subject of gossip in Washington given the Democratic Party's heavy defeat in the recent midterm polls and President Obama's struggling performance.

But this was the first time Clinton had spoken so directly about leaving public service, where she has been a dominant figure in Democratic circles for two decades.

"I think I'll serve as secretary of state as my last public position, and then probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children," she told a student audience in Bahrain.
end


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2010)

It seems the congress and Administration is refusing to abide by the will of the people or accept the results of the midterm elections:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/07/morning-bell-freeze-taxes-freeze-spending-and-go-home/



> *Morning Bell: Freeze Taxes, Freeze Spending, and Go Home*
> Posted December 7th, 2010 at 9:37am in Entitlements 12  Print This Post
> 
> Last night, President Barack Obama emerged from negotiations with Congressional Republicans and told the American people: “For the past few weeks there’s been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there’s been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what’s necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work?”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2010)

New ideas and out of the box thinking. Rep Ryan's plan is worth discussing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009322838245628.html?mod=rss_opinion_main



> *Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap*
> Let's not settle for the big-government status quo, which is what the president's deficit commission offers.
> 
> By SARAH PALIN
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2010)

The TEA party begins to exert influence in Washington D.C.:

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/255554/few-words-praise-fear



> *KEVIN WILLIAMSON ON THE VALUE OF FEAR:*
> 
> Something has got into the Republican leadership, and that something is: fear. Wonderful, salubrious fear. For this we can thank the Tea Party movement, for several reasons. The first is that, while our European cousins are out rioting in the street for more and more government spending, the one significant, genuinely popular movement afoot in American politics is demanding the opposite. No Washington poobah wants to get yelled at by rowdy constituents at a town-hall meeting back in the district. They really hate that.
> 
> ...



Those politicians who recognize and embrace point three will do well over the next several election cycles. Don't forget, the latest projections show Medicare and Social Security going into net deficit as early as 2016 and 2025 respectively, not a generation from now but within the life of the next administration. Fear really does focus the mind.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2010)

The TEA perty movement might start concentrating on the abuse of regulatory powers as a major campaign theme (and the new Congress should also be working to end regulatory abuse, possibly by denying funding to these programs. Readers should note the courts have already ruled the FCC has no powers to regulate the Internet, yet the Administration ignored the courts and passed the regulations).

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shellacked-obama-readies-his-regulatory-runarounds/?singlepage=true



> *Shellacked Obama Readies His Regulatory Runarounds*
> Posted By Bryan Preston On December 22, 2010 @ 10:31 am In Uncategorized | 28 Comments
> 
> The big media question after the mid-term shellacking wasn’t so much whether President Obama would move to the middle, but how far to the middle he would move (for the record, I never thought [1] he would moderate at all and still don’t).  The answer is now becoming clear.  On high profile issues where the people’s representatives actually get a vote and the press spills lots of pixels, he’ll move as far to the middle as he must to maintain a veneer of bipartisanship and reasonable compromise.  But on lower profile issues where the people’s representatives don’t get a direct vote, he will stay over on the hard left and dare anyone to challenge him.  If his actions survive a Congress or two, they’ll live on long after his presidency ends.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2010)

Remember the Republican party is not the TEA party movement, so I think a lot of this analysis is aimed at the current party establishment. The hostile takeover of the party from the inside by the TEA party movement is an ongoing process, but I am not sure it can be completed by 2012, or even 2016 for that matter:

http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/therepublican/2010/12/ryan-streeter-this-is-the-second-of-a-three-part-series-on-a-republican-agenda-for-middle-america-part-3-will-run-after-chr.html



> *The "purple problem," low wages, values and independent voter preferences: Republicans may be losing middle America after all *- Part 2 in Ryan Streeter's 3-part series
> 
> Ryan Streeter
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2010)

I thought Canada had a lock on this sort of thing with the Rhino Party....

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/jimmy-mcmillan-on-presidential-run-tell-obama-im-coming-after-his-black-a/



> *Jimmy McMillan on Presidential Run: “Tell Obama I’m Coming After His Black A$$”*
> Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, December 24, 2010, 11:33 AM
> .
> Ben Smith at The Politico reported:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2010)

Two years _is_ a long time...

URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/even-after-shellacking-2012-looks-ok-obama



> *Even after shellacking, 2012 looks OK for Obama*
> 
> On Boxing Day, it's worth noting that Barack Obama is down but not out.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Dec 2010)

I dont see Obama's chances improving. This is a radical intent on remaking America into a marxist state. It appears that with the loss of their majority in Congress Obama intends to continue his radical agenda by using the regulatory agencies and end run Congress. Recently the FCC has exerted its control over the internet via net neutrality regulations this is a major power grab.
The Congress has the power of the purse and could gut these regulatory agencies but it wont be pretty.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Dec 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is a radical intent on remaking America into a marxist state. It appears that with the loss of their majority in Congress Obama intends to continue his radical agenda by using the regulatory agencies and end run Congress. Recently the FCC has exerted its control over the internet via net neutrality regulations this is a major power grab.



Net Neutrality is a Communist plot.  Must be why Marxist regimes love net neutrality so much.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2010)

Here are some themes for the next year, which will test the TEA party movement and their crop of new Senators and Congressmen. As I understand the TEA party movement's goals to be less government spending and a smaller, constitutional government we can see many of these themes are interrelated. Will they be able to achieve some or all of their goals, or will they be captured by the "Beltway" establishment and achieve little of their agenda? Some or all of these may also morph into election themes for 2012 as well.:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ten-political-flash-points-for-2011/



> *Ten Political Flash Points for 2011*
> Posted By Richard Pollock On December 30, 2010 @ 7:01 am In Uncategorized | 16 Comments
> 
> Next year, expect the 112th Congress and the Obama White House to be locked in battles over spending rollbacks, budget limits, the deficit ceiling, entitlements, monetary policy, and the “de-funding” of federal programs. Expect a year of oversight hearings with striking revelations, subpoenas, and dramatic confrontations with the White House. The new incoming Tea Party class in the House and Senate understand they can claim a mandate from the November elections, and in the next year, Washington’s political ground zero will be over money.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2011)

More reasons not to be complacent:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-obama-gets-to-270-in-2012/



> *How Obama Gets to 270 in 2012*
> 
> Posted By Myra Adams On January 3, 2011 @ 12:06 am In Elections 2012,Health Care,Homeland Security,Immigration,Judiciary,Legal,Politics,US News,economy | 2 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More reasons not to be complacent:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-obama-gets-to-270-in-2012/




"Complacent" infers that you already know that the GOP will field a candidate who is better not measurably worse than Obama. I think Obama, two years into a four year term, is 'worse than most' US presidents but it is not, yet, clear to me that the GOP can will field a better candidate. (I am 100% certain the GOP *could* field a very, very good presidential candidate but the ongoing *culture wars* may mean that the GOP produces Palin or worse. Should anyone be "complacent" about Palin for President?)


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2011)

Complacent also means the "One and Done" meme, or the idea that the 112 Congress will be able to fix everything.

Whoever the GOP chooses as their candidate for 2012 (and Governor Palin has a huge base and a formidable political machine, whatever you or I may think of her as a potential President may be overwhelmed by forces already in place) will be operating against all the various factors listed above. The current President might also get a boost from a "Black Swan" event like another 9/11 or meltdown in Korea, so long as it isn't handled like the Gulf oil spill. The appearance of competence in the face of a disaster may well go a long way to convincing voters _not_ to change horses.


----------



## observor 69 (3 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think Obama, two years into a four year term, is 'worse than most' US presidents but it is not, yet, clear to me that the GOP can will field a better candidate.



Interesting, we are calling Obama "worse than most US presidents" while talking about bookends of Bush and Palin.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting, we are calling Obama "worse than most US presidents" while talking about bookends of Bush and Palin.




Yes, but we are not comparing him (or even Palin) to Filmore, Harding, Buchanan, or Johnson.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2011)

Let's see how this political game plays out:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2011/01/17/are-we-sure-civility-will-help-the-democrats.html



> *Are We Sure 'Civility' Will Help the Democrats?*
> 
> During the debate over welfare reform that consumed much of 1995 and 1996 in Congress, those who generally supported the Republican approach (ending the welfare "entitlement," imposing work requirements) had a very strong hand. Polls had consistently shown voters hated no-strings welfare. Even the Democratic president blamed welfare for sustaining a "culture of poverty." It would have been a minor feat of parliamentary skill for Republicans to somehow not reform welfare in this situation.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2011)

Remember the power of positive press. If things play out the way suggested here, imagine a gridlocked Congress and executive until the logjam breaks in 2016. Black Swans could work both for and against the administration, but I doubt there will be any Watergate level revelations about the administration (despite lots of indicators ranging from the thuggish maner of the Auto bailouts to TARP and stimulus monies vanishing into non existent Congressional Districts). Even constant pressure from the Blogosphere has only resulted in "narratives" being dropped rather than retractions, apologies or re examination of the issues in light of the fresh evidence.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/01/20/get-ready-for-an-obama-victory-in-2012/



> *Get Ready for an Obama Victory in 2012*
> January 20, 2011 - by Roger L Simon
> 
> The best thing to happen to Barack Obama is that the Republicans cleaned his clock in 2010. He is suddenly looking not so bad for 2012.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2011)

Narcissist may be a little on the harsh side but I do think that before all else Obama is about Obama....getting on and getting ahead.

He found a route from rags to riches by being a convivial spokesman for whoever would pay him a decent wage, and in his "community" that meant being an excellent commisar. 

Do good in school.
Say the right things.
Get the scholarships.
Stay out of trouble.
Meet the right people.
Get to Harvard.
Repeat
Get to Acorn
Repeat
Chicago Democrats
Repeat
Illinois Democrats
Repeat
Federal Democrats
Repeat
(Secure Oprah and Soros along the way)
President
Repeat
Oh Sh*t
Career Going Well,
Career Stops
IA
Figure out the new message...
Revert to Plan A.


----------



## observor 69 (21 Jan 2011)

Golly I can become president just by becoming a ' convivial spokesman."

Operators are standing by!!


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jan 2011)

It is reported down here that the Obama reelection campaign has officially commenced. The aim (can I use that term ) is to raise *one billion dollars*.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2011)

Battlespace preparation. Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional in court, now Dems are forced to go on record as supporting it:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/141829-senate-rejects-healthcare-repeal



> *Senate rejects healthcare repeal*
> By Julian Pecquet	 - 02/02/11 06:25 PM ET
> The Senate on Wednesday voted down a repeal of President Obama’s healthcare law in a 47-51 party-line vote.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2011)

Here is a big "oops" moment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/258817/dccc-debt-could-consume-campaigns



> *DCCC: Debt Could Consume Campaigns*
> February 3, 2011 10:52 A.M.
> By Jim Geraghty
> Tags: DCCC, NRCC
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2011)

Wisconsin could be setting the shape for the 2012 contest:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-and-the-dems-blundered-in-wisconsin/?singlepage=true



> *Why Obama and the Dems Blundered in Wisconsin*
> 
> Posted By Richard Pollock On February 21, 2011 @ 12:13 am In Uncategorized | 153 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2011)

And an interesting counterpart to the above; which may preview how the Democrat party will play the issue in 2012:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/02/22/how-the-left-sees-the-union-crisis-in-madison



> *How the Left Sees the Union Crisis in Madison*
> 
> Posted By Ron Radosh On February 22, 2011 @ 9:01 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2011)

Expect more of this behaviour. If it escalates there will be dire consequences to democracy and the Rule of Law. (Don't forget Canada's opposition parties also tried to overturn the results of an election with their coalition stunt. Since all parties had denied that they were goig to form a coalition, and only struck the deal many weeks after the election itself, it certainly did not reflect "the will of the people" in Canada):

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wisconsin_left_war_on_democracy_I9oFZLDvmyi6EBdk7v8MGM



> *Wisconsin: Left's war on democracy*
> By MICHAEL A. WALSH
> 
> Last Updated: 5:05 AM, March 10, 2011
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Mar 2011)

If they win, will a precedent be set so that President Obama can be recalled???


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2011)

Donald Trump throws his hat in the ring:

http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/why-trumps-birth-certificate-statement-will-resonate/



> *Why Trump’s Birth Certificate statement will resonate*
> Posted: March 24, 2011 by datechguy in politics, primaries 2012
> Tags: birth certificate, birthers, donald trump, election 2012, joe scarborough, morning joe, obama 14
> …in three sentences.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2011)

The new battlespace:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CFAC6E04-B5E1-C985-5A34BBC4962FEB53



> *Obama faces brave new Web world*
> By: Byron Tau
> April 4, 2011 04:10 PM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2011)

And where the true electoral battle will be fought:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/first-thoughts-on-the-ryan-plan/236868/



> *First Thoughts on the Ryan Plan*
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> As I said yesterday, I think it's no longer credible to complain that the GOP has not put forward any sort of meaningful solution for the budget.  At this point, they're the only ones who have put forward a detailed outline; the Democrats still seem to be hoping that if they kind of mill around long enough, eventually an angel will float over the horizon and deposit a plan that doesn't annoy anyone (and/or allows them to pay for the entire thing by raising the marginal tax rate on the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife to 110%).
> ...



And an update by the author:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/do-we-really-need-to-raise-taxes-to-close-the-deficit/236897/



> *Do We Really Need to Raise Taxes to Close the Deficit?*
> APR 6 2011, 11:02 AM ET369
> I think the first part of this James Capretta analysis cited by Reihan is basically right:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2011)

The budget, deficit and debt will be huge issues for the next election cycle (and many after that):

http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_fiscal_feint_5URbEBWpinEwDnKOdI3y6N



> *Bam's fiscal feint*
> 
> By MICHAEL A. WALSH
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2011)

While the analysis of the Republican field is superficial nonsense (this is Politico, after all), the interesting part of this article is ho the political left might be going to play in this election cycle:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=937F283E-37D4-46DC-BA8E-73C99C198227



> *Obama faces problem on left, not right*
> By: Roger Simon
> April 12, 2011 04:39 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2011)

Now we see how the Dems will try to fight the election:

http://keithhennessey.com/2011/04/14/wh-strategy/



> *The President’s budget strategy*
> 
> POSTED APRIL 14, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Apr 2011)

Its far to early to speculate,but gas prices will have to go down and the job numbers will have to improve [I mean the real numbers not the phonied numbers publicized]. People vote their pocket books and $5 gas or more will kill the dem's. Obama and company feel that high gas prices will help his green energy programs,but they would be very mistaken.He has essentially shut down any new drilling in the Gulf and through the EPA will attack the coal industry. The one area that I think could be a boast to green energy would be the use of natural gas as fuel.City dwellers can ride public transportation but those in the suburbs and in rural areas have to pay through the nose for gas which will increase the cost of food and everything else.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2011)

Governor Palin is back in grand style:

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/04/16/palin-in-madison-veni-vidi-vici/



> *Palin in Madison: Veni, Vidi, Vici*
> Apr 16, 2011 19:48 EDT
> 
> Sarah Palin rides to the sound of the guns. It was a chilly, wet and blustery afternoon in Madison, Wisconsin — one more appropriate for a late-season Packers game than a springtime political rally. The stirring NFL Films theme,  “The Classic Battle,” would’ve been a more apt musical choice than Van Halen’s “Right Now” to accompany Palin as she entered the stage outside the state capital building to address thousands of Tea Party members, along with a good number of extremely hostile, expletive-hurling government union rowdies.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

Very interesting data points. How questions are framed and how statistics are manipulated makes for very interesting results (and changes how we see and understand things) It will be interesting to see if this Program for Public Consultation group is fronting for a particular side:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/25/politicians_not_public_to_blame_for_debt_crisis_ryan_obama_deficit_study_americans_concessions_109648.html



> *Politicians, Not Public, to Blame for Debt Crisis*
> By David Paul Kuhn
> 
> Americans are reportedly childish about the debt crisis. The public says the budget deficit is a serious issue. So serious that Americans will let other people sacrifice. Rich people. We know the enemy of U.S. debt, and it's us. You, dear reader, are framed as a hypocrite. But is that true?
> ...


----------



## WingsofFury (27 Apr 2011)

Sure, it would be more expensive than the proposed fleet of 65 CF-35's...but here's why having multiple platforms for Canada's Air Force might be something worth considering.

The Canadian Air Force Multiple Fast Air Platform Option


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2011)

Reality is setting in when a Blue state follows Wisconsin's lead:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2011/04/mass-cuts-collective-bargaining-obama.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FsBgTA+%28The+Strong+Conservative%29



> *Mass Cuts Collective Bargaining, Obama Silent*
> 
> Today, President Obama released his birth certificate which proved what most people already thought: Obama was born in Hawaii.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2011)

Since President Obama has begun campaigning now (although some might say ne never stopped  >), we might be treated to _two years_ of this:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-obama-administration-bans.html



> *Video- Obama Administration Bans Reporter for Using Camera to Record Anti-Obama Protesters*
> Posted by Aurelius at 9:38 PM
> 
> Is this really that big of a surprise?  A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle recorded several anti-Obama protesters who disrupted an Obama fundraiser.  In other words, she was reporting the news.  The Administration's response:  the reporter, Carla Marinucci, was "removed as a [press] pool reporter."
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (29 Apr 2011)

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Sure, it would be more expensive than the proposed fleet of 65 CF-35's...but here's why having multiple platforms for Canada's Air Force might be something worth considering.
> 
> The Canadian Air Force Multiple Fast Air Platform Option




And if for some unfortunate reason the F-35 or F-18s should meet an Su-35S that doesn't like us.

Read this for the likely outcome.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html


----------



## Crank (2 May 2011)

Since Obama finally took care of Bin Laden should help him with next election.


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2011)

Depends on how well it counterbalances $5.00/gallon gas and escalating food prices in the minds of the American people.


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2011)

Perhaps the darkest of dark horses:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Road-Ahead-A-Third-Man-Who-Can-Lead



> *The Road Ahead: A Third Man Who Can Lead*
> Paul A. Rahe · May. 1 at 2:17pm
> 
> Last summer, I posted on BigGovernment.com a series of pieces on executive temperament. I began with Barack Obama who had demonstrated by fecklessness on a grand scale that he lacked the requisite instincts. Then, I went on to examine a series of Republican governors – Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels – who had demonstrated that they really understood what it means to say, “The buck stops here.” Finally, I posted a piece arguing that executive temperament is not enough – that principles matter. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a man of executive temperament, and he exhibited all of the right instincts – in pursuit of ends inconsistent with everything that is good about this country. My aim in this exercise, as I explained in a Ricochet post back in February was to lay the foundations for a later judgment of Republican presidential contenders, and it was my suggestion that we concentrate our attention on women and men with executive experience. Very rarely, I suggested, do United States Senators and the like make good Presidents. Their on-the-job experience teaches them the art of posturing and dodging anything that might displease their constituents, not the art of prudently making tough decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

Its official:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2011/05/newt-gingrich-stated-today-im.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FsBgTA+%28The+Strong+Conservative%29



> *Gingrich Announces Bid for Presidency*
> 
> Newt Gingrich stated today: "I'm announcing my candidacy for president of the United States because I believe we can return America to hope and opportunity."
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2011)

Next hat in the ring:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2011/05/ron-paul-running-for-president.html



> *Ron Paul running for President*
> 
> Congressman Ron Paul has finally announced his intention to run for President. From Fox News:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2011)

The interesting point in this article (besides the idea the Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu would be an outstanding cadidate) is the "short list" of potential Republican challengers. Anyone with more knowledge of US politics care to coment on this list?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/29/obama_the_weak_110029.html



> *Obama the Weak*
> By Jack Kelly
> 
> Many Republicans are unhappy with their choices for president, especially after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels declined to run.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2011)

This may be the narrative the GOP runs with in 2012. By forensic examination of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent economic crisis names are named, blame is assigned and voters are invited to punish the guilty. It is hard to see how this could go wrong, but political parties have demonstrated wonderful creativity in shooting themselves...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/



> *Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP?*
> Walter Russell Mead
> Democrats, watch out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2011)

The Republicans need to get back to their roots: small town, small business, essentially _liberal_, middle-American roots. The Democrats have, in the modern era, more or less secured the BIG segments - just as the Liberal Party of Canada did here: big banks, big labour, big business, big education, big cities. But even big cities are, really, conglomerations of small towns and the GOP can find votes in neighbourhoods and, especially, middle class suburbs.

To win, over and over again, the GOP needs to declare the culture wars as won; declare victory and come home. Let the big banks, big labour and central city neighbourhoods have abortion and gay marriage - both are here (at least there) to stay, no matter what all the preachers in all the world say or pray.

Focus on fiscal and social responsibility - good, solid, middle-American value based governance. "Moderate conservatism," Eisenhower's _conservatism_, worked. Goldwater, Nixon, even Reagan and Bush Sr, and especially Bush Jr were divisive. America doesn't need more division; it needs responsible leadership and good management.

The GOP can win with a moderate conservative; but it, and the Tea Party, will lose again and again and again with social and religious _conservatives_ - many of whom are no better that Christian fundamentalist fanatics, their own version of the _Taliban_. And they will deserve to lose, again and again and again because even left wing Democrats will appear more "middle American" and will capture the moderate independent vote.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jun 2011)

Stock in E.R.Campbell....rapid rise in value.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2011)

From Lawrence Martin yesterday:



> *With our stable political situation, the no-surprise Throne Speech and Monday’s repeat budget, it’s a calm Canadian world. No looming crises, no outsized government plans, a “steady as she goes” environment. It’s not the best of times, it’s not the worst of times, but it could be the dullest of times*.
> 
> One of the paramount questions of our day is the naming of the new prime ministerial kitten. Soon we’ll be having our 147th go-round on reforming the Senate. *Usually after the election of a majority government, there are tall dreams to be contemplated and much political capital to be spent. But not with these guys:* It’s about tweaking what we have. Their new politics is the politics of low expectations.
> 
> And the strategy may well be wise. Set the bar high, and you probably won’t reach it. Big promises are promises that often go unfulfilled. The lesson learned is not to make them, and that’s why *Stephen Harper and company have come forward with an agenda that barely makes it to the bottom rung on the inspiration ladder*.......



Aside from Lawrence bemoaning the fact that he won't have much to write about for the next four years, he does draw attention to the fact that Stephen Harper is about Governance and not Leadership.   Leadership roils the waters - and from time to time a little roiling is a necessary and useful thing.  But equally it is necessary to let the waters still and discover the impact of all that roiling.   If the waters become too turbulent it is hard to determine if the vessel moves because of the Leader or just because of the waters.

Harper's style is appropriate for a time of troubled waters.  The Americans could benefit from someone similarly inclined.

If you don't know what you are doing, if you can't predict the outcome within reasonable limits, then often it is better to do nothing at all.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jun 2011)

> Aside from Lawrence bemoaning the fact that he won't have much to write about for the next four years



Never stopped the Cdn media, let alone the Ottawa press corp, to create a story.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2011)

Breaking news from _The Globe and Mail_:



> Republican Gingrich’s presidential hopes shattered as top aides resign en masse
> 
> DAVID ESPO
> WASHINGTON— The Associated Press
> ...




Fun and games.  ???


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2011)

Perhaps why the former speaker's team quit:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/06/09/gop-nomination-perrys-to-lose/?print=1



> *Gingrich staff quits: Is the Republican nomination Perry’s to lose?*
> Posted By Roger L Simon On June 9, 2011 @ 2:37 pm In Uncategorized | 41 Comments
> 
> The news that key long time advisers to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — David Carney and Rob Johnson — have quit Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign [1], along with other Gingrich staff members, is a strong sign that Perry has decided to run for the presidency. Carney and Johnson only joined Gingrich in the first place when the ten-year Texas governor told them he would not compete for the presidency.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jun 2011)

Gingrich has been out of politics so long he forgot how to run a campaign.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Jun 2011)

Perry served in the USAF as a C-130 pilot, retiring as a Capt after approx five years service. Texas A & M grad, married his childhood sweetheart.

Very popular in Texas.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2011)

Governor Palin roils the waters yet again. Based on the evidence of her governorship, she probably would make a good president, but obviously needs a much better team of advisors and houshold troops to pull this off. (Maybe Prime Minister Harper can offer some advice...):

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sarah/?print=1



> *How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?*
> 
> Posted By Mary Claire Kendall On June 22, 2011 @ 11:36 am In Conservatism 2.0,Culture,Culture Bytes,economy,Elections 2008,Elections 2012,Film,Homeland Security,US News | 88 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## toyotatundra (7 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Republicans need to get back to their roots: small town, small business, essentially _liberal_, middle-American roots. The Democrats have, in the modern era, more or less secured the BIG segments - just as the Liberal Party of Canada did here: big banks, big labour, big business, big education, big cities. But even big cities are, really, conglomerations of small towns and the GOP can find votes in neighbourhoods and, especially, middle class suburbs.
> 
> To win, over and over again, the GOP needs to declare the culture wars as won; declare victory and come home. Let the big banks, big labour and central city neighbourhoods have abortion and gay marriage - both are here (at least there) to stay, no matter what all the preachers in all the world say or pray.
> 
> ...



E.R. I think a lot of your ideas are admirable, but I wonder if they are realistic. The GOP is not a party of the middle. It has been captured by the Christian right, and by Wall Street. However, the fact that the GOP has become a highly ideological grouping does not mean that it has become a less successful grouping. 

Pandering to Wall Street brings the party millions in campaign donations. Pandering to fundamentalism brings in campaign volunteers by the busload.

It may be a sad comment on human society, but division, anger and prejudice often sell better at the ballot box than moderation, compromise, and sound management.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> E.R. I think a lot of your ideas are admirable, but I wonder if they are realistic. The GOP is not a party of the middle. It has been captured by the Christian right, and by Wall Street. However, the fact that the GOP has become a highly ideological grouping does not mean that it has become a less successful grouping.
> 
> Pandering to Wall Street brings the party millions in campaign donations. Pandering to fundamentalism brings in campaign volunteers by the busload.
> 
> It may be a sad comment on human society, but division, anger and prejudice often sell better at the ballot box than moderation, compromise, and sound management.



Was the GOP captured by Wall Street?  Or was the GOP left as the sole supporter of Wall Street after the Democrats were "captured" by the "progressive left"?

My sense is that Democrats had as many, if not more Millionaires in their Rolodex as the Republicans ever had.  Equally Wall Street has made every effort over the years to lobby, pander and play both sides against the middle so as to ensure their position.

The difference seems to be that thosed prized Rolodexes no longer wield as much influence as they used to.  MoveOn's tweeting and friending on their social networks resulted in the Wobblies of the World finally managing to pull the only party they had a chance with, the Democrats, closer to their point of view and away from those "centrists" on Wall Street.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2011)

The GOP has not been captured by the Christian right or Wall St.  The Christian right is a minor faction in the GOP tent.  Wall St tends to follow whichever party it thinks is likely to win the next election.  If any faction can claim to have captured influence over the GOP, it is the TEA faction, and their influence is not assured.  The GOP is still, like the Donks, controlled mostly by its own internal elite.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2011)

Well, how many candidates fit this profile?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-to-look-for-in-a-presidential-candidate/?print=1



> *What to Look for in a Presidential Candidate*
> Posted By Adam Graham On July 6, 2011 @ 12:24 am In Elections 2012,Opinion,Politics | 25 Comments
> 
> Recently, I examined [1] what not to look for in a presidential candidate in a previous piece. The question now becomes: what should conservative voters look for in a Republican nominee?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2011)

Since jobs and economic recovery isn't going to be in play anytime soon, what will the narrative be for the Democrat party? Of course the Republicans also have an issue in that they haven't defined how Post Progressive society is going to work either:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/08/out-of-a-job/?print=1



> *Liberalism: Out of a Job*
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On July 8, 2011 @ 10:41 am In Uncategorized | 98 Comments
> 
> An Obama political aide [1] argued:
> ...


----------



## JaredG (15 Jul 2011)

Party supported prospects were pitted against phony Democratic prospects in a Wisconsin primary election. All six real Democrats triumphed over the bogus ones, and the victors will all face incumbent republicans in and August recall election (All six Democrats win over fake candidates in Wisconsin election). What do you think about it? I smell other agendas. I don't really support this recall election things... It just costs way too much for the state just to have this and simply too impractical. This is mostly just a facade for them to have their way with what they want (talking about delaying the election and fund raising). And what's with the fake democrats? It's worth noting that even these fake democrats somehow gained some votes.  :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2011)

Let's get real and get plain talking. Enough of the PC crap.

Obama is black and a socialist.

He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted), welfare people and a bunch of white idealist suburbanites that swallowed his 'Hope and Change' bullshit.

He's been able to deliver on nothing. He's got near both Houses in revolt. The country is bankrupt. He is closing in on 'Executive Orders' to ensure the populace follows his edict.

He has accomplished in one term, what took Trudeau almost forty years to accomplish here, before the sanity of of the CPC found it's way into the collective psyche of the Canadian public.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Jul 2011)

Can't wait for Redeye's reply, especially the first few words!


----------



## Haletown (15 Jul 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's get real and get plain talking. Enough of the PC crap.
> 
> Obama is black and a socialist.
> 
> .



everything America needs to know about Barry but doesn't

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted), welfare people and a bunch of white idealist suburbanites that swallowed his 'Hope and Change' bullshit.
> 
> He's been able to deliver on nothing. He's got near both Houses in revolt. The country is bankrupt. He is closing in on 'Executive Orders' to ensure the populace follows his edict.
> 
> He has accomplished in one term, what took Trudeau almost forty years to accomplish here, before the sanity of of the CPC found it's way into the collective psyche of the Canadian public.



Let's not forget who crowned him....Oprah Winfrey. The Queen of TV (and we all know its all about Oprah) told her viewership that Obama was the only choice.


----------



## toyotatundra (15 Jul 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He got voted in by blacks (most who have never voted)



Untrue. Blacks have usually voted in significant numbers in presidential races. Black turnout increased somewhat in 2008.

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/no-gap-in-racial-turnout-in-2008-elections-youth-gap-narrowing/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Untrue. Blacks have usually voted in significant numbers in presidential races. Black turnout increased somewhat in 2008.
> 
> http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/no-gap-in-racial-turnout-in-2008-elections-youth-gap-narrowing/



So what you're saying is the black vote increased last election. Glad we can agree :

And no, sorry, I didn't read your reference.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2011)

Steering in a slightly different direction, the Democrat candidate for the 2012 election is just as unknown and unknowable as in the 2008 contest:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/13/the-opacity-of-hope/?print=1



> *The Opacity Of Hope*
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On July 13, 2011 @ 10:50 pm In Uncategorized | 79 Comments
> 
> Angelo de Codevilla’s [1] review of six accounts of Barack Obama’s life at the Claremont Review of Books ends in the conclusion that Obama was always something other than what he portrayed himself to be. What that is, in Codevilla’s summary, is this:
> ...



And the disconect between socialist theory and practice is certainly going to be a huge (if unremarked) current in the campaign; the rhetoric of "Hope and Change" vs the practical results since 2008 that Americans are experiencing in their day to day lives.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2011)

The TEA Party movement continues to groow and evolve. look at the highlighted quote and think about the implications of that:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/19/whither-the-tea-party#



> *Whither the Tea Party?*
> 
> By Ned Ryun from the July/August 2011 issue
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jul 2011)

I dont see the Tea Party making common cause with the left.They are diametrically opposed to each other.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2011)

I think the implication is the TEA Party movement is not so much a Left/Right thing (although there are elements of that) but rather a populist movement directed against the current political class. TEA Party members are actively seeking to take over the Republican party ward by ward, as well as setting their sights on every level of elective office from city dogcatcher to POTUS. I have heard from several sources that people identifying themselves as Democrats are involved in the movement.

So the real contest is actually Populists vs Crony Capitalists, but the current American political structure is only set up for two parties. The current iteration of Democrat Party policies is much more heavily tilted towards Cronyism, so we see the TEA Party movement  focusing on the Republican Party by default.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jul 2011)

> I have heard from several sources that people identifying themselves as Democrats are involved in the movement.



For quite some time, we were active in the local Tea Party. One of the regular attendees was an African-American lady Democrat who shared more core values with the rest of us than one might think. Founding principles, less government, balanced budgets, etc. She was particularly interested in effecting change at the precinct level, with the intent of making her Democrat candidates accountable to the citizenry - much like the rest of us are trying to do.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2011)

The candidates who can articulate this the best will probably do well:

http://biggovernment.com/kschlichter/2011/08/08/anticipating-the-coming-convulsions-as-the-welfare-state-dies/



> *Anticipating the Coming Convulsions as the Welfare State Dies*
> by Kurt Schlichter
> 
> It’s already happening – the liberal dream of a perpetual social welfare state where deadbeat liberal constituencies feed off of the work of productive conservative citizens in perpetuity is dying.  There’s no doubt about that; the only question left is how long and hard the process will be as the hideous leviathan the utopian liberal establishment has created convulses and dies.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2011)

It was old news before it happened but Rick Perry is in the hunt according to this report reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-announces-bid-for-2012-republican-presidential-race/article2128819/


> Rick Perry announces bid for 2012 Republican presidential race
> 
> JIM DAVENPORT AND BETH FOUHY
> COLUMBIA, S.C.— The Associated Press
> ...




I was in Texas last winter during the gubernatorial primaries: Perry was challenged by US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, herself a well funded candidate and a prodigious campaigner. It was a rough, even dirty campaign but Perry won fairly easily - even though Hutchison tried to position herself to his right.

I think Perry is a more credible challenger than is Romney and far more credible that e.g. Bachman, Pawlenty, _et al_. It's early going, but this is bad news for Obama ~ maybe worse for Palin.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2011)

A few moments of levity; if you start calling political opponents "Hobbits", well what did you expect to happen?

http://pajamasmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/08/12/the-middle-earth-guide-to-campaign-2012/?singlepage=true



> *The Middle-Earth Guide to Campaign 2012—Updated*
> 
> One ring to rule them all/one ring to find them/one ring to tax them all/and in indebtedness bind them.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2011)

Governor Perry's speech:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/gov-rick-perry-america-needs-new-leadership-full-text-of-announcement-speech/?print=1



> *Gov. Rick Perry: America Needs New Leadership (Full Text of Announcement Speech)*
> Posted By Gov. Rick Perry On August 13, 2011 @ 12:25 pm In Politics | 202 Comments
> 
> Howdy. Thank you, Erick (Erickson, editor of RedState). It is great to be at RedState. And I’ll tell you what, it’s even better to be governor of the largest red state in America.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2011)

A prediction on how the campaign against Governor Perry might look (and it will be as vile as the one mounted against Governor Palin):

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Rick-Perry-First-Impressions



> *Rick Perry: First Impressions*
> Paul A. Rahe · Aug. 14 at 7:09pm
> 
> Yesterday, I listened twice to Rick Perry’s first advertisement. This afternoon – at the office where the internet connection is fast – I listened carefully to the first speech of  Rick Perry’s campaign. And I can say that I am both pleased and mildly worried.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2011)

And a Left wing challenge to President Obama? (wierder things have happened):

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/14/a-lonely-nation-turns-its-eyes-to-matt-damon/



> *A lonely nation turns its eyes to… Matt Damon?*
> 
> posted at 7:45 pm on August 14, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
> 
> ...


----------



## DBA (16 Aug 2011)

> The larger problem is this, however. Most Americans – outside Texas – associate a West-Texas accent and a folksy manner with stupidity. The Obama people – and, perhaps more subtly – the Romney people may try to depict Perry as a hick. This he can head off if he has the wit to recognize the obvious: that what plays in Texas may not play as well elsewhere.



Bush played the folksy card and won two terms in office.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> Bush played the folksy card and won two terms in office.




Agreed but, especially during the first campaign (against Gore) his campaign also played the Yale and MBA cards to try to offset the 'Texas yokel' bit.

Perry (or whomever the GOP runs against Obama) will have to have broad appeal to the Republican and Tea Party base and to independents ~ speaking our of both sides of their mouths is the stock in trade of political campaign managers.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2011)

The election will revolve around the economy, jobs and collapsed revenues. Here is the probable playbook, and the historical results of different economic policies. The upside is if US economic growth can be goosed to the Reagan era level, the new tax revenues will go a long way to fixing the deficit and debt (assuming this time the tax cuts are matched by corresponding spending cuts. The Democrat Congress of the early 1980's kept spending high even as tax rates dropped):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion



> *Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics*
> One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
> 
> By STEPHEN MOORE
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

The announcement that people on both the Left and Right may come next week:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palintracker-whats-happening-on-september-3/?print=1



> *PalinTracker: What’s Happening on September 3?*
> Posted By Barbara Curtis On August 27, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 11 Comments
> 
> July 13
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2011)

Reading carefully, you can probably see the outline of the Republican candidate's plans. Is President Obama willing to triangulate? The available evidence suggests the answer is "no", although with the job and economic situation in the tank due to the failed stimulus program and economic uncertainty, it is quite possible there will be Democrat Senators and Congressmen willing to support some variation of this program to save their own seats:





> *Why Obama Can't Support A Real Jobs Program*
> 
> I write about domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective. I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and the Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research Berlin. My specialties are Russia and Comparative Economics, and I am adding China to my portfolio. I have written more than 20 books on economics, Russia and comparative economics. My latest book is "Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin’s Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina." I blog at www.paulgregorysblog.blogspot.com.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kalatzi (30 Aug 2011)

Ahem,  Michele Bachmann seems tgo have a lock on the perfect answer to every politcal problem. 

Deus Vult!!!!! iper:

Hurricane Elena - God is punishing Washington. 

She says she has a lovley sense of humour. A true fact!! Proof here http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-ultimate-collection-of-stupid-michele-bachmann

If she gets in will be sooooo much safer with her finger on the trigger

It wil be interesting to see who else gets on side with this

Finally for those naysayers who say she is batsh*t crazy, I say enough!!!! Your offending the bats.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

A candidate with clearly libertarian leanings. Having low poll numbers does not invalidate the arguments, and given the size of the debt crisis upon us, the proposed solution has the advantage of actually being able to work in a realistic timeframe. (Won't be doen, since in the immortal words of Glenn Reynolds: "There's no opportunity for graft"):

http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/30/presidential-candidate-gov-gar



> *Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda*
> 
> Nick Gillespie & Jim Epstein | August 30, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2011)

Since the President will not be running on his record, this is probably the Democrat campaign outline:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/obama-jobs-speech-warning-to-congress.html



> *Minutes after his Sept. 8 address to Congress is set, Obama bashes both houses*
> August 31, 2011 |  7:54 pm    1945
> 
> Within minutes of agreeing with congressional leaders Wednesday night on an address to a joint session next week, President Obama flashed out an email to millions of supporters criticizing the chambers, their members and vowing to pressure them to enact his as yet unspecified job creation ideas.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2011)




----------



## kstart (11 Sep 2011)

The GOP War on Voting:

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830



> Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. "What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century," says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP's effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party –  38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.



Details in article, re: which states affected, newer registration required.  Make sure you are properly registered well ahead of the election date.  Start now.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2011)

Are they trying to prevent Democrats from voting, or are they preventing anyone who shouldn't be voting from voting? A lot of those rule changes include showing government ID or proof of citizenship, what's wrong with that?


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are they trying to prevent Democrats from voting, or are they preventing anyone who shouldn't be voting from voting? A lot of those rule changes include showing government ID or proof of citizenship, what's wrong with that?



There is nothing wrong with  it in a general sense. But it is the more stringent requirements added on top of already existing regulations that makes it more difficult for traditionally democrat voting populations to meet these new requirements.

It's all being wrapped up as a solution to a problem that barely exists, namely voter fraud. All independent research points to this being a manufactured problem, and the new regulations a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2011)

>All independent research

Translation: all ideological dogma


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2011)

Voter fraud is an issue that does need to be addressed, and there have been lots of articles over the years about groups like ACORN fraudulently registering voters, or so called "motor voters" regisering and voting in different districts or states.

Indeed, given the remarkably lax standards of voter registratin and ID currently in place, this seems more like common sense in action than anyting else. After all, there should be no perception that elections are in any way being rigged or manipulated, as dsputed elections lead to loss of legitimacy for the process overall.


----------



## kstart (12 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Voter fraud is an issue that does need to be addressed, and there have been lots of articles over the years about groups like ACORN fraudulently registering voters, or so called "motor voters" regisering and voting in different districts or states.
> 
> Indeed, given the remarkably lax standards of voter registratin and ID currently in place, this seems more like common sense in action than anyting else. After all, there should be no perception that elections are in any way being rigged or manipulated, as dsputed elections lead to loss of legitimacy for the process overall.



Is there proof of this?  How many have been charged?

I'm familiar a bit with ACORN here (Canada), and from what I know, yes they will help to reduce barriers for people that are poor, for many things, including exercising their democratic right to vote.  If you're poor and don't own a car, and the polling station is inaccessible (by public transportation); or if you are physically disabled, elderly, with limited mobility and can't get out to vote without help, yes, poverty groups can help and should help.   I know that from working with homeless people-- they are regularly targets of crime, they don't have safe places to store the little possessions that they have.  Lost IDs are something poverty groups deal with frequently so that their clients can access the system for medical needs, employment programs, etc.

I would be skeptical that the voter-fraud is as big as the GOP are claiming it to be.

From the RS article ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830 )



> A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. . . A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."



Policies should not be made up due to paranoid-based fears, there should be statistical back-up for policy changes.  Is it statistically significant, barring rare and infrequent cases (outliers).


Compare undemonstrated risk with demonstrated risks on the democratic process:


From RS article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830?page=2 )



> In Texas, under "emergency" legislation passed by the GOP-dominated legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, a concealed-weapon permit is considered an acceptable ID but a student ID is not. Republicans in Wisconsin, meanwhile, mandated that students can only vote if their IDs include a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date – requirements that no college or university ID in the state currently meets. As a result, 242,000 students in Wisconsin may lack the documentation required to vote next year. "It's like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote," says Analiese Eicher, a Dane County board supervisor



242,000 students lacking the documentation to vote-- that's statistically significant.  Now if they had a standardized ID system, regardless of gun ownership, student status, disability, level of income.

Has there been ideologically motivated restrictions placed on voters, purposely to skew results?  Democraphics of voting behaviour is well-studied by both parties and their pundits, and PR professionals.  Ann Coulter, for example, would prefer that women didn't vote, particularly single women: http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2011)

The best example of supposed voter fraud I've heard was about a deceased man who cast a vote in one election, according to the local GOP party rep. It came as a huge surprise to the man who assured all that he was very much alive and well, and had in fact voted for the GOP candidate, but would be reconsidering his decision in the future.

The Justice Department under the Bush Administration fired several federal prosecutors for refusing to bring forward charges of voter fraud because there was either no evidence that the fraud had occurred, or that the voters mistakenly thought that they were eligible to vote.

Voter fraud is a manufactured problem of the GOP to disenfranchise traditional Democratic voting populations. It goes along with the robo calls that tell voters that poll locations have changed, or that candidates have already won so they do not need to come out and vote. The fact that tactics like these have been linked predominantly GOP organizers says a lot about how far the GOP is willing to go to gain and hold on to power.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2011)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Neither side is lily white on this issue. Casting one's opponent as the devil raises questions about one's own status.


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2011)

Dems aren't smart enough to figure out how to get power and keep it.

I'm glad I have an excuse for not voting.

Still have to wonder how they can hold themselves up as an example of Democracy.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Sep 2011)

kstart said:
			
		

> From RS article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830?page=2 )
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Fake student ID, along with drivers licenses are one of the easiest forms of fraudelant ID to obtain, so I can understand why student ID's might not be considered valid. On the other hand see  here  for the requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit in Texas. Who's ID would you except? Concealed carry license or student ID? Note that there are other forms of ID that can be used (e.g.) drivers license, birth certificate, etc)  can used instead of student ID's.


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> drivers licenses are one of the easiest forms of fraudelant ID to obtain



You haven't tried to get a US drivers license lately have you?

Ever since 9/11 the number of hoops that one must go through to get one when you do not already have one can be more baffling than a trip through the looking glass.

And don't even try to show up at  the DMV without having checked the latest requirements online the same day you show up.

Now, that is not to say that you can pick up a fake on the street for the right price, but don't expect it to stand up to any form of close scrutiny.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2011)

Of course there is no fraud.  It is merely coincidence that "mislaid" ballot boxes keep popping up wherever election results are close.


----------



## kstart (13 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> You haven't tried to get a US drivers license lately have you?
> 
> Ever since 9/11 the number of hoops that one must go through to get one when you do not already have one can be more baffling than a trip through the looking glass.
> 
> ...



From the Rolling Stone Article ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830?page=3: )



> The barriers erected in Texas and Wisconsin go beyond what the Supreme Court upheld in Indiana, where 99 percent of state voters possess the requisite IDs and can turn to full-time DMVs in every county to obtain the proper documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Sep 2011)

cupper: 





> You haven't tried to get a US drivers license lately have you?



My 17 year old granddaughter in Oklahoma City, OK just got her drivers license last week. A harrowing experience due to the DMV staff and procedures.

For her appointment she had her green passport and related documents for her Dad's US posting; US green card; US military ID; US HS student card, birth certificate, Drivers Ed certificate etc.

At the DMV you have to pass  glass enclosed security, sit with your back to the counter, and deal with rude little people who lord it over young white girls (I would say raciest).

All that ID was refused and my grand daughter and family was threatened with deportation from the USA, etc, etc. Also asked if she had voted in the US. She is seventeen!

My daughter had to phone to a supervisor and make another appointment. Dealt with a white guy this time.


----------



## DBA (13 Sep 2011)

Voter ID laws are so lax there is no evidence produced when voter fraud does occur. Not much more than "I am John Doe from Mary Jane Lane", "Here is your ballot" so once the vote is cast and the person leaves there is no way to detect let alone prosecute them if they are really "Bob from Doug Drive" and have voted multiple times. 

Take a look at Canada's voter ID requirements: Elections Canada: Voter Identification at the Polls . We also have more competent voter registration and run a National Register of Electors.


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> cupper:
> My 17 year old granddaughter in Oklahoma City, OK just got her drivers license last week. A harrowing experience due to the DMV staff and procedures.
> 
> For her appointment she had her green passport and related documents for her Dad's US posting; US green card; US military ID; US HS student card, birth certificate, Drivers Ed certificate etc.
> ...



My experience wasn't quite that extreme, but just as frustrating.

About a week before my wife and I went to get our licenses in Virginia, she checked on line to see what documentation was required. It listed various documents such as valid passport, valid drivers license, green card, etc. We had everything in order, or so we thought. We get there, take a number and wait. And wait. After 2 hours our number is called, we go up, and the ever so helpful government trained drone goes through all of the documentation and says everything looks fine, but where is your addressed piece of mail?

Apparently sometime in the period since the last update on the website and the day we show up, they added a requirement to show proof of residency in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which meant that you needed to provide a piece of mail addressed to you, that was not a window type envelope. In other words, you couldn't use a bill or something that had your address on it, you needed to provide some sort of envelope with a cancelled post mark, with your name and address on it.

Needless to say we were both livid. To the point where I politely explained how asinine it was that I could enter the country (at that time) with a birth certificate and a drivers license but couldn't get a license because I didn't have a piece of mail with me.

Sure enough, we went home, checked online, and the new requirements had been updated three days before.

So after waiting a few days to mail an empty envelope from my office to my home, we went back. Breezed right through.

Now to their credit they have since revised the proof of residency requirements to something more reasonable and secure such as a bill with the name and address on it. And they have you check in at a separate desk where they check to see if you have all the required documentation before issuing a number, so you do not have to wait in line before finding out there is a problem.

And all of this was a direct result of 9/11. Apparently several of the hijackers obtained Virginia Drivers Licenses through the DMV with fake documents, since prior to 9/11 Virginia was one of the easiest states to get a license.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2011)

Given the power the right to vote places in a person's hands - including, ultimately, the power to compel others to do various things - it is unlikely that any voter ID requirements could be considered unfairly onerous.


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Given the power the right to vote places in a person's hands - including, ultimately, the power to compel others to do various things - it is unlikely that any voter ID requirements could be considered unfairly onerous.



Only if those same requirements go further than the already effective existing laws. Or they also take steps to make meeting those requirements more difficult than is necessary, like eliminating half the DMV's and forcing people to travel an unreasonable distance to get a state issued ID.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2011)

GOP wins two more elections. Note the end game in the NY election is already started:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/09/13/election-night-in-ny-9/



> *Election Night in NY-9 (And Nevada-2) Update: Turner WINS*
> 
> Will Bob Turner shock the world? Will Obama’s unpopularity cause the Democrats to lose a seat they have held for 90 years? Results from NY-9, formerly known as The Weiner Seat, will be posted here as soon as I get ‘em. If you see them first, pop them in comments. If you live in the district or near it, let us know what you’re seeing and hearing.
> 
> ...



and looking at the Administration's record. This is what they have to run with:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/14/obama-presidency/



> *Has Obama Learned Anything?*
> Peter Wehner 09.14.2011 - 11:50 AM
> 
> Imagine you’re in the Obama White House, and this is what you face. Democrats lose a special election in a congressional district they have controlled since the 1920s and which was framed as a referendum on the president. There’s a possible scandal brewing over the White House’s effort to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion dollar loan to a solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra. The most recent Census Report shows median household earnings fell for the third consecutive year, back to 1996 levels. A record number of Americans are in poverty. In Afghanistan, the Taliban mounted a fierce assault on the U.S. embassy and NATO military headquarters in Kabul. A new CNN/ORC poll shows Obama’s disapproval rating has reached a new high while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low. And that’s just today.
> ...


----------



## Kalatzi (15 Sep 2011)

Reproduced under the fair dealing clause of the copyright act

Republican Party's base: A gallery of ghouls  

Audience outbursts at recent Republican Party debates reveal the often vicious sentiments of the party's base.
Cliff Schecter Last Modified: 15 Sep 2011 09:18 
inShare.1EmailPrintShareFeedback 

The audience at a recent Republican debate cheered when Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Texas had executed 234 people under his governorship [GALLO/GETTY] 


Vampire movies and television programmes may be all the rage right now, but not one of them has anything on a good old-fashioned audience of Republican debate watchers.

In a rather shocking - yet sadly, not surprising - display of the bloodlust and viciousness usually reserved for members of law enforcement pulling over a driving-while-soused Mel Gibson, the so-called "party of life" has seen its most ardent adherents at the past two GOP debates belching out blood-curdling cheers in favour of untimely death. All of which tells you a little something about who these theoretical human beings are, and what they stand for - and it has does not have much to do with traditional small government conservatism.

In a recent debate on MSNBC, as it was being pointed out that Rick Perry rivals Kublai Khan in his propensity for stopping people's ability to breathe, Perry was roundly cheered by the crowd for his record-breaking string of executions in Texas. Debate attendees yelped like it was a home run in the World Series or a successful moon mission, a sickening display whether one supports the death penalty or not (which I do in limited circumstances).

Much like wolves hovering over a slab of meat or performance art directed by the Marquis de Sade, the activist Tea Party Republican base seemed to delight in the suffering of others. They were Teddy Roosevelt ... if he were buried in a pet cemetery for the past 90 years.
"
Link here http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191564857715459.html

"In one of his seminal works, brilliant sociologist and social commentator Daniel Bell, an editor and contributor to the compendium The Radical Right, opined in 1962 that "today the politics of the right is the politics of frustration - the sour impotence of those who find themselves unable to understand, let alone command, the complex mass society that is the polity today".

Sometimes I think he had a crystal ball when he said that
"


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2011)

The campaign narrative is unravelling already. Good thing we have another year to eat popcorn and see what else comes down the pike:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_terrible_risk_Pm8PkSjoycx4Ner42KhAwJ#ixzz1Y2UJjLnv



> *Bam’s terrible risk*
> 
> By MICHAEL A. WALSH
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2011)

The high misery index in the late 1970's was considered a key factor in the defeat of the Carter Administration. As commentators on the article point out, unemployment and inflation are artificially lowered by changing the way they are reported compared to the 1970's; the true misery index is far higher...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584976/201109151824/Living-Miserably.htm



> *Living Miserably*
> Posted 09/15/2011 06:24 PM ET
> 
> Economy: What's a six-letter word that describes what you get when you combine spiking jobless claims and rising inflation? Answer: M-I-S-E-R-Y. And as new reports show, Obama is dishing out heaping portions of it.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2011)

And of course we should never forget:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2011/09/21/obama-will-resurge/



> *Obama will resurge*
> September 21, 2011 12:51 am Dalwhinnie American Politics
> 
> The always bracing Lawrence Auster, compared to whom we are all faithless wimps, writes as follows on the Obama-is-doomed scenario:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2011)

This should cause a lot of consternation in the Republican ranks (especially the establishment GOP in Washington). While I doubt Herman Cain has the organization and funding to go "all the way", he will certainly shake up both the GOP and the Dems, and change much of the nature of the "narrative" both sides are trying to craft:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/herman-cain-sheds-dark-horse-status-in-crucial-florida/



> Herman Cain Sheds Dark-Horse Status in Crucial Florida
> 
> Posted By Kyle-Anne Shiver On September 25, 2011 @ 3:21 pm In US News | 52 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2011)

Wow; the fact that an elected official says somthing like this *at all* is pretty disturbing. (Now I know that probably everyone who was ever elected to office probably dreams this every once in a while as a pleasant daydream; but openly voicing this idea is a different matter entirely)

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/09/27/north-carolinas-democrat-gov-hey-lets-just-go-ahead-and-cancel-the-next-election-mkay/?print=1



> *North Carolina’s Democrat Gov: Hey, Let’s Just Go Ahead and Cancel the Next Election, M’Kay (Update: Hyperbole?)*
> 
> Posted By Bryan Preston On September 27, 2011 @ 2:06 pm In Politics | 81 Comments
> 
> ...



And the audio sure doen't sound like a joke:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/new-audio-nc-governor-struck-serious-tone-on-suspending-congressional-elections/



> *New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections*
> Published: 11:26 AM 09/28/2011 | Updated: 1:42 PM 09/28/2011
> 
> By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2011)

If I had to guess, I'd say Governor Palin is playing the long game, and looking at the 2020 election:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/pitch-perfect_palin.html



> *Pitch-Perfect Palin*
> By C. Edmund Wright
> 
> Last night, Sarah Palin's statement -- and her breaking news interview with Mark Levin -- stressed some extremely important ideas.  As such, her not running might well be among the least important topics she touched on.  Yes, I know that's the news that everybody was waiting for -- but what interested me most was what Palin said about her vision for America and how she said it.  It was crafted very intentionally --and it was simply pitch-perfect.
> ...


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2011)

She didn't have a snowball's chance this time around, and it's not likely for 2016, by 2020 she'll be a has been. She's fluff, noisy fluff, but still just fluff....


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2011)

4 years is a long time for Palin to be flapping her gums.

Better to stay silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove they were right.


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are they trying to prevent Democrats from voting, or are they preventing anyone who shouldn't be voting from voting? A lot of those rule changes include showing government ID or proof of citizenship, what's wrong with that?



This is what happens when you have overly onerous laws administered by narrow minded bureaucrats.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/

The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.

So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.

That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.

"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center.

 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2011)

Governor Palin certainly delivered the House for the TEA Party movement in 2010, if she can do the same for the House and Senate  in 2012 we may see the new administration rewarding her with a high level appointment (reward + keep your potential rivals closer....) 

This timeline is where the 2020 timeframe comes in, Governor Palin may have disagreements with the administration but will be working in the background to build her political machine (Herman Cain may well be doing the same thing) rather than openly challenge the administration. Governor Palin will still be a vigorous person in 2020, and the Legacy Media will keep her front and center for the next eight years without her lifting a finger; what other Presidential contender could get that kind of free publicity?

Of course a _week_ is a long time in politics, but like I said, I think Governor Palin is playing a long game...


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Governor Palin certainly delivered the House for the TEA Party movement in 2010



You're giving her waaaaay more credit than she deserves.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> if she can do the same for the House and Senate  in 2012 we may see the new administration rewarding her with a high level appointment (reward + keep your potential rivals closer....)



Hmmm. Interesting move by the Obama White House in 2013. :nana:

Seriously though, I can't see her getting an appointment to any position that is of any importance that also requires senate confirmation.

As for 2016 or 2020, I don't think she has the attention span to wait that out, and the American Public will more than likely get tired of her schtick sooner rather than later.


----------



## cupper (8 Oct 2011)

*5 Myths about Voter Fraud*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-voter-fraud/2011/10/04/gIQAkjoYTL_story.html?hpid=z3

1. We need state voter ID laws to prevent fraud.

Prosecutable cases of voter fraud are rare. For example, a 2005 statewide study in Ohio found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9 million votes cast. An investigation of fraud allegations in Wisconsin in 2004 led to the prosecution of 0.0007 percent of voters. From 2002 to 2005, the Justice Department found, only five people were convicted for voting multiple times. In that same period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for improper voting.

According to Barnard political scientist Lorraine Minnite, most instances of improper voting involve registration and eligibility, such as voters filling out registration forms incorrectly or a person with felony convictions attempting to register. Neither of those issues would be prevented by a state photo ID requirement. According to George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton, a former member of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, “a photo ID requirement would prevent over 1,000 legitimate votes (perhaps over 10,000 legitimate votes) for every single improper vote prevented.”


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2011)

The "Chicago machine" may react to any challenge the way opposition was dealt with in "The Untouchables" 



> You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?



http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/10/occupy-democratic-presidential-primaries



> *Occupy the Democratic presidential primaries!*
> By: Hugh Hewitt | 10/09/11 7:19 PM
> Examiner Columnist
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2011)

I have commented before, in e.g. the Ontario Election thread, that both Canadian and US politics are _infected_ with candidates who are selected by the party faithful, who _tend towards_ the political/policy _extremes_ while the voters are, broadly, _centrist_ and, as a consequence, find themselves with increasingly unappetizing choices.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is more on that subject:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/occupy-wall-street-v-tea-party-the-further-polarization-of-us-voters/article2196912/


> Occupy Wall Street v. Tea Party: the further polarization of U.S. voters
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI | Columnist profile | E-mail
> WASHINGTON— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...




The _centre_, I would argue, was an "orphan" in Ontario earlier this month; the _centre_ didn't support McGuinty's Liberals, it just liked the PCs and NDP less, in part, in the PC case, because the leader and, therefore, the party were perceived (thanks, in some measure, to effective Liberal campaigning) as being _extreme_; that may have been a lie but it was an effective one.

In the US, if the Democrats embrace the OWS _movement_ in the same way that the GOP embraced the _Tea Party_ movement, there will be a HUGE hole in the _centre_ - one that would be ripe for the picking by a traditional Republican espousing small town socio-economic and secular values.

But, one cautionary note: I want to look again at a fairly typical middle class suburban neighbourhood - last year I saw a few Tea Party signs around Christmas; by Easter the few was over a dozen; I will be interested in seeing how many there are today. (Until recently lawn signs typically told passers by that you attended e.g. Texas A&M or that your child play basketball or football for the local high school, is in the band or is an honour society member. Few homes put up political signs - until the Tea Party arrived.)


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2011)

The current occupant's state of mind?

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/10/10/the-boulevard-of-broken-dreams/?print=1



> *The Boulevard of Broken Dreams*
> 
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On October 10, 2011 @ 11:21 am In Uncategorized | 164 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2011)

Cross linking form another related post.

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/82999/post-1082776.html#msg1082776


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

Governor Palin's role in the 2012 electoral cycle:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palintracker-not-running-but-still-kingmaking/?print=1



> *PalinTracker: Not Running, but Still Kingmaking*
> Posted By Barbara Curtis On October 15, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 21 Comments
> 
> With Sarah having emphatically removed her hat from the ring, is there any point in PalinTracking? I’ve concluded, at least for now: You betcha!
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

That's interesting and all of that, and I'd waste hours debunking most of it, but I'm going to remain on my current long standing track and relegate Sarah Palin to the footnote of history that she somehow made herself to be. She's been irrelevant to the party since the results of the 2008 election came back, and irrelevant she should remain.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2011)

I doubt you can make a very strong case that she was irrelevant to the fortunes of the Republican Party in 2010.  Perhaps you are too fixated on the presidential election, which is but one among many.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2011)

I think she does matter, but less and less each election cycle. I think her endorsement is being actively sought by every serious GOP candidate - even Romney.

The question, _my_ question anyway, is what's her AIM? Is it to defeat Obama or is to _radicalize_ American politics?

If she were to endorse Romney, for example, at a key moment early next year he would, likely, have little difficulty beating Obama because he's already the favourite with many Republicans, a lot of _independents_ and possibly even some conservative Democrats; it's only the right wing of the GOP that doesn't like or trust him. If Palin could give him the right wing of the GOP and,therefore, the White House, she would be well placed to influence America for four years.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think she does matter, but less and less each election cycle. I think her endorsement is being actively sought by every serious GOP candidate - even Romney.
> 
> The question, _my_ question anyway, is what's her AIM? Is it to defeat Obama or is to _radicalize_ American politics?
> 
> If she were to endorse Romney, for example, at a key moment early next year he would, likely, have little difficulty beating Obama because he's already the favourite with many Republicans, a lot of _independents_ and possibly even some conservative Democrats; it's only the right wing of the GOP that doesn't like or trust him. If Palin could give him the right wing of the GOP and,therefore, the White House, she would be well placed to influence America for four years.



A Romney-Cain ticket endorsed by Palin perhaps?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2011)

The current numbers, the ones that I have seen, anyway, indicate that Romney can beat Obama IF he can get at least some of the Republican _right_ on board. It may be through a VP candidate or Palin.

The GOP, with our without Palin, have to address the same question: what's the AIM? Is it to beat Obama and take back the White House or is it to die in a ditch for ideological purity?


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2011)

Your strategy should be unfathomable, even if you don't plan it that way and are just lucky (but fortune does favour the prepared and the bold).  All the attention is on the big ticket races; little on what happens at the state level.  There was a lot of quiet, rightward shift in 2010 that didn't draw much attention; there will be more in 2012.  The further right the centre moves, the better overall for Republicans (country club, paleocon, libertarian, TP, or any other stripe).  It's not really much different from what Harper is doing, but of course Harper is the PM and our system is such that our head of state and senate distract no-one away from him.

Palin serves the Republican Party just by acting as a lightning rod, even if she never endorses a single candidate.  All the time and money spent attacking her is unavailable to attack anyone else.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Oct 2011)

Underestimating Sarah Palin has been the left's fools' errand since she appeared on the last Republican ticket. She brings much more to the process than her detractors give her credit for.


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I doubt you can make a very strong case that she was irrelevant to the fortunes of the Republican Party in 2010.  Perhaps you are too fixated on the presidential election, which is but one among many.



Forgive me for my jadedness. You really have to live around DC to understand how the election cycle never really ends, just morphs from one to the other. After 10 years of endless campaigning you start to get jaded and cynical.

The GOP is currently in a struggle within itself, the hard conservative right and TP vs the party's mainstream. And as a result, the current group of candidates leave a lot to be desired for either group. And this causes problems when the need extend beyond their base to win the presidency. The Hard right candidates either won't survive the primaries, or won't be electable in the general election because the independents who make up the center get turned off.

The center right candidate suffers because the others are ganging up in an anyone but Romney campaign. Romney has way too many vulnerable areas that leave him open to attack for flip flopping, and again he independents will question the true position. And the hard right support will drop off.

Their only saving grace right now is that the Dems have no idea how to use the power when they do win, and how to fight to get it back when they lose it.

I said it before and I will say it again, I'm glad I can't vote, because I would hate wasting it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Oct 2011)

It doesn't matter if the current crop of candidates leave much to be desired.  The winner of the primary will face Obama, not Bill Clinton.

The TP has already shown it will get behind candidates even if they are not TP-favoured candidates.  Romney is the most likely to win the GOP primary.  The TP will support Romney.  The GOP "establishment" will support Romney.  The independents will not find much to dislike in Romney.  And the alternative will still be Barack "Pivoting to Jobs and the Economy Now...No, Really, I Mean It This Time" Obama.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2011)

The real importance of candidates and political activists like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Governor Palin are the way they expand the parameters of the debate by exploring solutions outside of the GOP establishment.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Democrats right now is they have no other "voices" exploring new approaches to government (the OWS movement is parroting ideas that were current with the 1930 "Wobbly" movement, ideas not too much different from the administration itself). 

Even Democrat party supporters are looking for new or different ideas:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576628673446417268.html



> *The Exasperation of the Democratic Billionaire*
> Real-estate and newspaper mogul Mortimer Zuckerman voted for Obama but began seeing trouble as soon as the stimulus went into the pockets of municipal unions.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2011)

Spin the Crony Capitalist wheel one more time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_print.html



> *Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations*
> By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam, Published: October 19
> 
> Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (20 Oct 2011)

Welcome back Mr. Carter

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/oh-this-is-good.php

What goes around, comes back even worse it seems.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

The TEA Party movement already gets this, now if the Establishment Republicans start making the election contest a referendum of the Obama administration's policies, there will be a mass toppling of Democrat politicians all downline:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-years-4-trillion-and-all-the-right-choices-later/?print=1



> *Three Years, $4 Trillion, and ‘All the Right Choices’ Later*
> Posted By Tom Blumer On October 23, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Column,Money,Politics,US News | 47 Comments
> 
> On October 14 (a Friday, naturally), Tim Geithner’s bunch released the final Monthly Treasury Statement of the 2011 fiscal year. It showed that for the third consecutive year, the federal government’s reported deficit was well over $1 trillion — $1.298614 trillion [1], to be exact.
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> now if the Establishment Republicans start making the election contest a referendum of the Obama administration's policies



Where the hell have you been since January 2009?

That's all the GOP has been doing since the inauguration.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2011)

The establishment GOP and the TEA Party movement are not one and the same, as many establishment Republicans discovered when they were turfted in the primaries where they were running as _incumbents_.

Please try to pay closer attention....


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2011)

The establishment GOP has been pushing to make Obama a one term president since his first day in office. Mitch McConnell has made this his stated goal since day 1.

The TEA PARTY has only focused on him since the 2010 election cycle started.

Believe me, I've been paying attention. Can't do anything but considering that's all we get on the news here.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2011)

The power of example will add to the efforts fo the TEA Party movement and others in changing the electoral map of the United States. In some ways, this may be more important than the results of the Presidential, Senate and House elections, since the State legislatures and local governments are much "closer" to the voters, and the decentralized nature of the US government system gives the States much more latitude than Canadian Provinces or the nations in the EU to name two counter examples.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/10/21/the-red-state-in-your-future/



> *The Red State in Your Future*
> 
> Merrill Matthews
> Contributor
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2011)

An analysis of the Perry plan. The dynamic analysis reminds me of the situation in the early 1980's under a previous Republican President....:

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/the-revenue-and-gdp-impact-of-the-perry-flat-tax-plan-now-with-actual-numbers/



> *The revenue and GDP impact of the Perry flat tax plan — now with actual numbers!*
> By James Pethokoukis
> 
> October 26, 2011, 12:48 am
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Campaign narrative for the Democrat Party, and the historic results:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/10/28/obama-campaigning-like-its-1936



> *Obama: Campaigning Like It's 1936*
> 
> While Republican presidential candidates are looking forward by proposing variations of a flat income tax, President Obama’s tax-the-rich campaign strategy is looking backward—to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 reelection campaign.  FDR won his reelection, but the American people lost: Roosevelt’s new taxes on business and the “economic royalists” gave us the “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2011)

The TEA Party movement is probably the most visible manifestation of this trend, I believe there are some rumblings here in Canada as well, but not anywhere near the critical mass the TEA Party movement has achieved in its short existence. The idea of political parties as "flags of convienience" is important; the Ontario election was essentially a contest between OPSU and the taxpayers, where the taxpayers, being less organized, lost. The other end of the spectrum is the Libertarians as a social movement meme; politics is about allocating scarce resources but people are finding new ways to access resources _without_ the traditional gatekeepers, hence the decreasing need to be involved with the politcal process at all.

The frightening thought is the situation as described has some resemblance to the late _Res Publica Roma_ before the civil wars and the establisment of the Imperium. We will live in interesting times.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/10/31/the-american-political-parties-are-breaking-down/



> *The American Political Parties Are Breaking Down*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> The decay of American political parties continues as the real money and power in politics shifts inexorably away from party organizations to informal and ad hoc groups.  The combination of citizen grassroots movements, decentralized party structures and the vast sums of money short-circuiting the official party structures is changing the way politics works.  As this story in the New York Times details, the real conversation among Republican-affiliated power brokers now takes place outside party structures.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

The Politico "hit piece" (which makes unsubstantiated allegations from unnamed sources) was obviously designed to derail the prospects of candidate Herman Cain. They should have watched "Star Wars" before setting out: 

"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/11/03/the-cain-scrutiny/



> *The Cain Scrutiny*
> Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 2:40 pm
> His enemies and the media may have made him stronger.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2011)

Voter fraud:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2011/11/01/soros-funded-meeting-of-voter-fraud-deniers-hold-election-law-conference/



> *Soros-Funded Meeting of Voter Fraud Deniers Hold Election Law Conference*
> November 1, 2011 - 4:44 pm - by J. Christian Adams
> 
> Last month, a collection of groups funded by George Soros held a conference on election law and the upcoming 2012 election.  PJ Media has obtained details of the event from an attendee.  Our eyes and ears are extensive.  The meeting was one long attack on voter integrity efforts in the 2012 election.  The sponsor was the Fair Elections Legal Network, a group that has received $105,000 from the Soros-funded Tides Foundation since 2007.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2011)

Mitt Romney's economic plan:

http://blog.american.com/2011/11/romney-just-dramatically-raised-the-stakes-vs-obama/



> *Romney just dramatically raised the stakes vs. Obama*
> By James Pethokoukis
> 
> November 6, 2011, 7:32 pm
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2011)

Konrad Yakabuski is _The Globe and Mail's_ chief U.S. political writer, based in Washington. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Globe and Mail_ are his views on the election which is, now, only 364 days away:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/is-obama-doomed-to-be-a-one-term-president/article2227800/


> Is Obama doomed to be a one-term president?
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> Washington— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




But: the Republicans, especially the uncompromising _Tea Party_ Republicans and the anti-immigrant and religious right fringes, can still seize defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2011)

I'm not sure that the _Globe's_ Konrad Yakabuski isn't reading too much into this but I think he's right that most American voters (as opposed to most Democrat and Republic _partisans_) are moderates.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is his report on the recent votes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/worldview-american-voters-push-back-against-republican-game-plan/article2230541/


> Worldview: American voters push back against Republican game plan
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> Washington— Globe and Mail Update
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2011)

Another year of misery isn't going to help the Dems in any election contest all the way downline:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/econo-misery-and-three-econo-myths/?print=1



> *Econo-Misery and Three Econo-Myths*
> Posted By Tom Blumer On November 15, 2011 @ 12:06 am In Column,economy,Elections 2012,Politics,US News | 28 Comments
> 
> “It’s one thing to fall into a ditch. Quite another to paint and decorate the ditch and call it home.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2011)

External events could overwhelm the "narrative":

http://blog.american.com/2011/11/europe-a-dagger-pointed-at-obamas-reelection/



> *Europe a dagger pointed at Obama’s reelection*
> 
> By James Pethokoukis
> November 16, 2011, 11:05 am
> ...


----------



## 57Chevy (18 Nov 2011)

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Ten reasons why Obama will be reelected in 2012
David Rothkopf  19 Nov 2011
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/ten-reasons-why-obama-will-be-reelected-in-2012-1.933093

The electoral map says it will be close. But already Republican overreaching has pushed Ohio back towards the incumbent president
Watching Republican presidential debate on November 12 on US foreign policy, you might be forgiven if you thought it shed absolutely no light on US foreign policy. After all, by definition ... and by God's good graces ... the views expressed represented those of people who will have precious little influence over America's international course.

Only one of these people can be the Republican nominee. And, in part thanks to performances like what Americans saw on Saturday, even that individual is very likely not going to ever be president of the US. As a consequence the vapidity of Herman Cain is irrelevant. The pro-torture stance of the wing-nuts in the group is irrelevant. The ridiculous zero-based foreign aid formula suggested by Rick Perry is irrelevant. Even the pontificating of Republican non-Romney of the Month, Newt Gingrich, is irrelevant. Because these weren't foreign policy ideas or positions. They were desperate cries for attention. Sadly, also irrelevant will be thoughtful views offered by Jon Huntsman, who clearly distinguished himself as the most capable, thoughtful, experienced, and credible of the crew.

This means that the 30 minutes of the debate that CBS chose not to air will have a virtually identical impact to the 60 minutes of Obama-bashing, fear-mongering, and peacocking that actually were broadcast. It is possible that some of the views that were offered by likely nominee Mitt Romney could be consequential. This would not seem to be good for US-China relations except that there is virtually zero possibility that president Mitt Romney — who would essentially be the hand-picked candidate of the business community — would actually follow through on his anti-Beijing sabre-rattling once in office.

Further, some of his statements were essentially meaningless to begin with, — like his assertion that a vote for him was the only way to avert Iran getting the bomb, not being backed by facts or even being remotely credible given how key what happens between now and when the next president takes office will be. But more important still is that Romney isn't going to be the next president either. In all likelihood that will be US President Barack Obama.
Article continues below

Here are 10 reasons why:

1. Obama is the incumbent. That matters. And he has become increasingly confident in using the bully pulpit to his advantage, at appearing presidential. The crucial issue is going to be economics.

2. Despite Europe's economic mess, a number of other factors suggest that the US economy may begin to tick upward more during the next year. Other parts of the world are likely to be growing from the emerging markets to, in a modest way, Japan. More importantly, the likelihood that the US unemployment rate declines the better part of a point to something closer to 8 per cent is pretty good.

3. Like Reagan, Obama is liked and seen as trying hard to do the right thing. That, plus some signs of progress goes a long way with the American people.

Third party candidate

4. Furthermore, none of these candidates are a Ronald Reagan. Moreover, none of them are even a George W. Bush, which is saying something. Mitt Romney is the whitest white man in America. He will look more like the establishment than Obama in an anti-establishment year.

5. That search for alternatives could lead to a third party candidate. If it's Ron Paul it will eat into Romney's base. It is highly unlikely the left will pose a similar challenge to Obama.

As for the possibility of a centrist third party candidate, appealing as it may be, it will be less so to many if it appears that candidate can't win and will only increase the likelihood that Mitt Romney will be elected on the US Chamber of Commerce ticket.

6. While external events in the world, like the Iranian detonation of a nuclear device or a terror attack, could hurt Obama, in all likelihood, given his growing comfort with foreign-policy and the tendency of the American people to rally around the president in times of crisis, it would be a mistake to count on such a development being more likely to help the Republican candidate.

7. The reality is that while foreign policy won't be central to the election, Obama has already succeeded in doing something remarkable: Taking it off the table. He is hard to criticise given his record with Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaqi, Muammar Gaddafi, meeting his promise in Iraq, starting to get out of Afghanistan, and restoring America's international reputation.

8. We haven't gotten to the one-on-one segment of the campaign yet. Whoever is the Republican candidate has to run against the very disciplined, intelligent, well-prepared, charismatic president. Which of those folks one saw Saturday night can hold their own versus Obama?

9. The Republican Party on the Hill, via the Tea Party and via its more extreme elements has adopted a bunch of policies that are astonishingly out of touch with the moment. They should be doing great given the economic problems. But they are not only seen as obstructionist on the Hill but they are seen as advocates of millionaires they don't want taxed and opposed to fairness in sharing the burden for the sacrifices fixing the economy will require.

10. By extension the leading voices for the Republican Party are folks like those on the stage ... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell.



Really? That's going to grab America in the current environment? The electoral map says it will be close. But already Republican overreaching has pushed Ohio back towards Obama. The Republican hopes are: Florida, Marco Rubio has suffered some self-inflicted wounds. Virginia gets bluer by the day. It's close ... but it's trending toward the president. For those of you who watched the debate and were disheartened there is at least all the above to suggest that none of it mattered that much anyway. As of right now the favourite to be the next president of the US has to be the current president of the US.

— Washington Post


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

Bumper sticker seen:

'In 2008 you voted for Obama to prove you weren't racist. Now, in 2012 vote for anyone but Obama, to prove you're not an idiot'


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Nov 2011)

> Obama i*s liked and seen as trying hard* to do the right thing. That, plus some signs of progress goes a long way with the American people.


 
I call BS. Obama is not liked, and is only seen as trying hard to get reelected. That's all he has been doing; campaigning for reelection and spending.

There is a multitude of pools out proving Obama's job approval rate is very low. He still may win thought, after all Ontario reelected Mc Dinky.

Obama has a billion dollars for reelection.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2011)

Expect to see lots more of this in 2012:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12-charged-with-voter-fraud-in-georgia-election/



> *12 charged with voter fraud in Georgia election*
> Published: 8:47 AM 11/24/2011
> By Neil Munro
> Archive | Email Neil Munro
> ...


----------



## Haletown (27 Nov 2011)

This could be a very entertaining 2012 campaign . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0BQ6I4bdzGQ


"he can use a teleprompter"

Ouch!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2011)

The race gets uglier:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/



> *It’s been four weeks since Politico broke the story of accusations against Herman Cain*
> Posted by William A. Jacobson    Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 7:54pm
> 
> On Sunday evening, October 30, Politico broke the story that two women had complained about Herman Cain while at the National Restaurant Association.  In that first week, Politico ran several dozen stories about the accusations without telling us what the accusations were, while characterizing the accusations as sexual harassment.
> ...


----------



## cupper (29 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The race gets uglier:
> 
> http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, in other news:

*Ginger White accuses Herman Cain of long affair*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ginger-white-accuses-herman-cain-of-long-affair/2011/11/28/gIQA6H6T6N_story.html?hpid=z1

An Atlanta woman said Monday that she engaged in an extended consensual affair with Herman Cain that began after a business meeting in the 1990s, continued as he flew her from city to city for dates and ended eight months ago — as Cain launched his presidential campaign.

It looks like he finally found someone who was accepting of his advances. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2011)

This is interesting. While the TEA Party movement os working from the bottom up, a very prominent Republican insider suddenly moves on the party from the top down:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/haley-barbour-at-american-crossroads-seismic-gop-fundraising-shift/?singlepage=true



> *Haley Barbour at American Crossroads: Seismic GOP Fundraising Shift?*
> Mega-fundraiser Barbour looks to be bypassing the RNC for 2012.
> 
> Posted By Myra Adams On November 28, 2011 @ 9:58 am In Uncategorized | 19 Comments
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2011)

The Dems platform:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284284/what-do-democrats-ireallyi-stand-today



> *What Do Democrats Really Stand For Today?*
> November 29, 2011 7:07 A.M.
> By Jim Geraghty
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2011)

A thoughtful look at the election (but with the added bonus of Zombies!). Wzowct to see these arguments trotted out for the next yeat...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/29/six-dead-ideas-walking-in-michael-medveds-romney-zombie-wall-street-journal-oped/?print=1



> Six Dead Ideas Walking in Michael Medved’s Romney Zombie Wall Street Journal Op/Ed
> 
> Posted By Dave Swindle On November 29, 2011 @ 12:14 pm In Politics | 12 Comments
> 
> ...



end part 1


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2011)

Part 2

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/29/six-dead-ideas-walking-in-michael-medveds-romney-zombie-wall-street-journal-oped/?print=1



> 3. The ideological landscape of presidential elections from decades ago is meaningful in 2011.
> 
> 3) Rush Limbaugh’s favorite slogan, “Conservatism wins every time,” is more a statement of wishful thinking than an accurate summary of electoral experience. It’s true that Ronald Reagan’s inspiring, comprehensive conservatism brought two sweeping victories (in 1980 and ’84). But the same supremely gifted candidate lost two prior runs for the presidency (in 1968 and 1976) to two charismatically challenged, moderate rivals, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2011)

Now where the real game is played; the electoral college:





> Wargaming the Electoral College [UPDATED]
> December 5, 2011 - 8:45 am - by Stephen Green
> Email
> Print
> ...


----------



## cupper (5 Dec 2011)

I can never really wrap my head around how they figured that the electoral college is a better system than popular vote.

Much the same way that a majority of Americans can't wrap their minds around the fact that they don't actually vote for the President and Vice President.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I can never really wrap my head around how they figured that the electoral college is a better system than popular vote.
> 
> Much the same way that a majority of Americans can't wrap their minds around the fact that they don't actually vote for the President and Vice President.



The voting system was divided into three for valid reasons:

The Congress was to deal with the "day to day" issues and reflect the popular will, hence the popular vote.

The Senate was to reflect the interest of the various States, hence Senators were initially elected by the State legislatures. (The conception of the United States was a series of Sovereign States which had pooled their interests and some resources to deal with common issues. The names of the various older states reflects this ("Commonwealth of Virginia"), and until the Civil War, the proper way to refer to the nation was "These United States")

The Presidency was to act as the executive of the entire nation, and the electoral college was used to prevent the more popuolus states form overwhelming the votes of the smaller, less populous states.


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The voting system was divided into three for valid reasons:
> 
> The Congress was to deal with the "day to day" issues and reflect the popular will, hence the popular vote.
> 
> ...



When are they going to try this?


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Dec 2011)

Every system of government has its short comings. The founding fathers could not envision the growth of the country and yet the system they devised has worked well for over 2 centuries. Pretty remarkable.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Dec 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I can never really wrap my head around how they figured that the electoral college is a better system than popular vote.



The American Founding Fathers when designing their political system of government looked at other governments and realized that in most cases their electoral systems could result in corruption and/or one person or a group of people gaining to much power.  Thus, they designed they implemented the electoral college where special electors would only be chosen just prior to election day. This would prevent any one group from getting together and trying influence the outcome.*   

In most cases the electoral college and the popular vote usually goes to the same candidate, but in four cases their were elections the president was chosen based on the electoral college when his opponent won the popular vote. The last time thins happened was in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

* This is my interpretation of_ de Tocqueville's_ description of the electoral college in  Democracy in America.  From my understanding things have changed since then.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting analysis, with which I agree, re: why Prime Minister Harper likely hopes that Obama wins again in 2012:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/border-deal-built-on-harper-and-obamas-friendship/article2264215/


> Border deal built on Harper and Obama's friendship
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




My suspicion is that Prime Minister Harper doesn't see anyone "better" than Obama in the GOP field and, in any event, it is the Congress, not the White House that really matters in most of our bilateral problems and it is likely, after 2012 and 2014, to remain dysfunctional if not downright inept; so "better the devil you know" and so on.

While "it helps that the two men call each other Stephen and Barack," it is not a really important thing. St Laurent and Eisenhower had a good, close working relationship despite the fact, as I understand it, that they were very different men with very different tastes and not given to "liking" one another; they worked well together despite the fact that "Uncle Louis" _bluffed_ "Ike" to get a 50/50 deal on the St Lawrence Seaway. Equally, Mike Pearson and LBJ actively disliked one another, personally, but they too worked productively together - usually through middle men. Both understood the value and importance of the bilateral relationship and each was good enough at his job to understand that personalities didn't matter.


----------



## cupper (9 Dec 2011)

What are the chances we see a reversal of fortune, with a Dem majority in the House, and a GOP majority in the Senate?

*Gallup poll shows anti-incumbent sentiment at all-time high*

A new Gallup survey shows that more than three-quarters of registered voters think most members of Congress do not deserve to be reelected – the highest such number in the 19 years that Gallup has asked the question.


Seventy-six percent of registered voters in the Gallup survey said they don’t think most lawmakers deserve to be reelected, while 20 percent said they believe most members of Congress do deserve reelection.

The anti-incumbent mood is shared by independents and members of political parties alike: 82 percent of independents, 75 percent of registered Republicans and 68 percent of registered Democrats said most members don’t deserve to be reelected.

Gallup surveyed 903 registered voters from Nov. 28 to Dec. 1; the poll has a margin of error of four percentage points.

The percentage of voters saying most members do not deserve reelection has been climbing since 2002, when an all-time low of only 29 percent said that most lawmakers should be booted.

Notably, anti-incumbent sentiment has risen sharply since May: The current high of 76 percent is up 13 percentage points from where it stood seven months ago at 63 percent.

As is typically the case, when it comes to reelecting one’s own U.S. representative, voters have a rosier view. Fifty-three percent of registered voters surveyed in the latest Gallup poll said their own House member deserves reelection while 39 percent said otherwise.

Those numbers represent a slide downward from May, when 57 percent said their member of Congress deserves reelection, although the shift is not as marked as the increase in broader pessimism toward Congress as a whole.

Taken together with recent surveys showing the congressional approval rating at a dismal 9 percent, the Gallup poll is a reminder to members that voters are deeply dissatisfied with the 112th Congress, which, as The Post’s Ben Pershing notes, will this month wrap up one of the least productive sessions in recent years.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2011)

Based on the ground game of the TEA party movement, it is far more likely that RINO Republicans and incumbent Democrats in both houses take heavy casualties. The next Administration will have to learn to live and work with a cranky and inexperienced group of legislators, as well as to adjust the give and take (no dismissing the opposing party by saying "I won", for example), in order to accomplish anything.

Since The United States is a Federal system, I am inclined to think the real action will take place in the "Downline" elections as the TEA party movement takes on State legislatures, municipal and county governments and the lower levels of the Judiciary. Not only will this have a very direct effect on the citizens, but it also fills the bench with a new generation of politicans who will exert influence in their position for years to come, and will provide a pool of candidates for higher levels of government as well.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2011)

A series of graphs that demonstrate the resuts of this administration's policies. All the Republicans need to do is display these graphs prominently on blogs, bilboards and TV ads...:

http://northshorejournal.org/the-discouraging-unemployment-picture



> *The Discouraging Unemployment Picture*
> December 6th, 2011 | 4 Comments
> 
> The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a great deal to say about the November 2011 unemployment numbers and the October numbers from the metro areas. The unemployment rate fell to 8.6 percent from 9 percent in November. In October, the unemployment rates fell in 281 of the 372 metro areas the BLS watches.
> ...



A series of graphs, so go to the link


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A series of graphs that demonstrate the resuts of this administration's policies. All the Republicans need to do is display these graphs prominently on blogs, bilboards and TV ads...:
> 
> http://northshorejournal.org/the-discouraging-unemployment-picture
> 
> A series of graphs, so go to the link



and then run this 2009 Obama speech clip 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6jJvkkNmR_8

while in the background show graphs of what the great Obamassiah actually did.

Because  he is an economic genius.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

An interesting aside, this is perhaps the first time that Space policy has been discussed, and look at the level of vision being displayed here (especially by Newt Gingrich). While mining the Moon is a bit outlandish by current standards, seriously thinking about doing this and providing room for people to take steps to realize this dream may have important spinoffs. (Compare how SpaceX has drastically lowered the price of space launch compared to the current government supported consortium. Now imagine hundreds of small and medium companies vying to creat rugged, low cost devices to operate in the space environment to carry out complex tasks...)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285573/newts-moon-mines-rand-simberg



> *Newt’s Moon Mines*
> December 12, 2011 4:31 P.M.
> By Rand Simberg
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

This is going to be a critical battle. Ensuring the integrity of the vote is just as important (if not more so) as any other part of the electoral process. Tha fact the DOJ is fighting against integrity measures is disturbing:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/obama-administration-coordinating-with-left-wing-groups-on-voter-fraud.php



> *Obama Administration Coordinating With Left-Wing Groups on Voter Fraud?*
> 
> I wrote yesterday about the lightly-attended march in New York, ostensibly on behalf of voting rights, which was sponsored by a broad coalition of left-wing groups and was addressed by several Democratic politicians. While the number of participants was small, the affair had all the signs of a semi-official Democratic Party initiative. Sure enough: Nation magazine notes that Eric Holder will deliver a “major speech on voting rights” tomorrow, and links Holder’s speech to yesterday’s march:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2011)

The GOP campaign just writes itself, but is there a candidate who can use this effectively?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/obama-places-himself-on-the-continuum-of-greatness.php



> *Obama Places Himself on the Continuum of Greatness*
> 
> There was an initially-overlooked moment in President Obama’s recent interview with 60 Minutes. Excerpts from the interview were played on television, and CBS posted the interview in its entirety on its web site. Left on the cutting-room floor, it turned out, was a revealing moment when Obama judged himself against the greats of past eras:
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (21 Dec 2011)

Obama’s job-approval rating is highest since summer, Post-ABC poll finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-job-approval-ratings-show-signs-of-improvement-post-abc-poll-finds/2011/12/19/gIQAdArC5O_story.html

After a difficult summer and a contentious fall, President Obama’s job-approval ratings are showing signs of improvement — a crucial indicator of his reelection chances as he seeks to overcome voters’ doubts about his economic stewardship.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Americans are still broadly disapproving of Obama’s handling of the economy and jobs, the top issues, but that views of his overall performance have recovered among key groups, including independents, young adults and seniors.

At the same time, the public’s opinion of Republicans in Congress has continued to deteriorate, potentially putting the president in a position to benefit politically from his standoff with the GOP-led House over extending the payroll tax cut.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2011)

More electoral corruption. This is a very long article, but going to the lingk and reading will give you a much better idea of what citizen groups like the TEA Party movement (much less ordinary taxpayers) are fighting against:

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Dec 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quag9dp1Nn4&feature=youtu.be

TV spot the Republicans need to air for the next year.  
This combined with Corzine telling congress he does not have a clue where his client’s money went.  
All the Republicans have to do is play those 2 video clips back to back over and over and over.


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Dec 2011)

In case you missed it, President Obama, during the last Sunday 60 Minutes interview stated that after Lincoln, Johnson and FDR, he was the next best. That segment was edited out (why: too fantastic to believe?) but was included in the online edition.

*Cartoon Of The Day – The Most Arrogant President Ever*


Michael Ramirez, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, has a cartoon showing why Barack Obama is not the fourth best President ever but, he is the most arrogant. Be sure to read each blurb – it’s well worth your time.

If you like political cartoons like I do, be sure to check Mr. Ramirez’s work in his book titled ‘Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion.’ I recently just picked it up myself and it is fantastic.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2011)

Perhaps some of our American members can comment on this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1



> *Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves*
> By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
> 
> WASHINGTON – More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.
> ...


----------



## cupper (24 Dec 2011)

It could be that in many states you can only vote in the primary of the party which you are registered, with some states allowing independents to vote in the primary of their choice. Since the GOP has been the big game this time around, and there also being significant dissatisfaction among moderates on both sides of the spectrum, there may be a move within the center to make their feelings known as a backlash against the swing towards the right on the GOP side.

But that is just a guess on my part. However there is a definite anti-incumbent mood down here which will make the next 10 t0 11 months very interesting.


----------



## cupper (24 Dec 2011)

Just plain piss poor performance.

Gingrich, Perry disqualified from Va. primary ballot

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/perry-disqualified-from-va-primary-ballot/2011/12/23/gIQA3BZNEP_blog.html?hpid=z1

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to submit enough valid signatures to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, state GOP officials said Friday evening and early Saturday.

The Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday that Gingrich and Perry failed to submit 10,000 signatures of registered voters required to get their names on the ballot for the March 6 primary.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the party announced on Twitter.

The rejection is a significant setback for the Gingrich campaign since he is leading the polls in Virginia among likely Republican voters and is seen as a strong contender for the nomination.

Perry’s campaign told state election officials it had submitted 11,911 signatures, and Gingrich’s campaign said it submitted 11,050 signatures. State party officials spent Friday night validating the signatures.

Earlier Friday, the Republican Party of Virginia certified former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) to appear on the ballot.

The four candidates turned in thousands of signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline Thursday.

Jerry Kilgore, former attorney general and chairman of Perry’s campaign in Virginia, said he was disappointed, but that qualifying for the Virginia ballot is a “daunting task.”

“Hopefully, he will do better in other states,’’ he said. “He can focus on other states.”

Candidates had until 5 p.m. to collect 10,000 signatures from across the state, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional district.

Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum did not submit signatures and failed to qualify on Thursday, according to state GOP officials.

Virginia, an increasingly important swing state, will hold its primary on Super Tuesday, March 6.

Romney became the first Republican presidential candidate Tuesday to submit signatures for Virginia’s primary election ballot.

On Thursday morning, Gingrich said at an event outside Richmond that his campaign was still collecting signatures, but expected to have enough.

A poll released Wednesday showed Gingrich with a slight lead over Romney among Virginia Republicans in the race for president. The Quinnipiac University poll shows Gingrich at 30 percent and Romney at 25 percent among Republican voters.

President Obama was the first presidential candidate to submit his signatures Dec. 2.

The Democratic Party of Virginia certified his signatures Friday. He was the only Democrat to qualify for the ballot so the State Board of Elections will cancel the primary. All Virginia delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be cast for him, said Brian Moran, party chairman.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Dec 2011)

Romney is sitting pretty right now. 
I dont believe the polls or anything the main stream media reports at this stage.Their task is to get Mr Obama re-elected.One little problem though,all those millions of unemployed and employed alike that are watching thier grocery and gas prices spiral upward.Thats all on the Prez.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Dec 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qymIXlcO3JY

Masterpiece Theater


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Dec 2011)

An interesting (and prescient?) bit of prognostication reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/28/kelly-mcparland-the-2012-presidential-result-you-read-it-here-first/


> Kelly McParland: The 2012 presidential result. You read it here first
> 
> Kelly McParland
> 
> ...




Like McParland and Frum I remain fascinated with the GOP's apparent determination to make Obama a two term president.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2011)

Of course the last time we had a Democrat President and a Republican House the budget came close to balance and an accounting surplus was reported:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-just-barney-eight-veteran-house-dems-retiring/?print=1



> *Not Just Barney: Eight Veteran House Dems Retiring*
> 
> Posted By Richard Pollock On December 28, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 27 Comments
> 
> ...



I am more convinced that the real focus on the elections should shift from the high profile Presidential race to the "downline" elections. States, counties and municipalities, school boards and judges moving into the "Red" column will have an enormous effect on the economy in the short to medium term (think Texas), but perhaps more importantly, will provide a huge pool of experience and training for future generations of politicians. The results of 2010 are still working their way through the system (as the above article notes, Democrat politicans are jumping ship in anticipation of the coming wave), 2012 might actually be felt over the next two decades as a deep cultural change works its way through the political system.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2011)

The graph for the election campaign:


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2011)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:





Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html


----------



## Haletown (30 Dec 2011)

****   MODERN VERSION

    The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

    The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

    Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

    CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

    America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

    Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not EasyBeing Green’. Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We Shall Overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright    has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.

    President Obama condemns the ant  and blames  President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

    Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid    exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti‑Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

    The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the GovernmentGreen Czar and given to the grasshopper. The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t  maintain it.

    The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

    The grasshopper is found  dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over  by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

    The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest    of the free world with it.

    MORAL OF THIS VERSION:Be careful how you vote in 2012.

http://tinyurl.com/73and8o


----------



## Redeye (30 Dec 2011)

That's a pretty well written summation of what's almost certain to happen in November. I can't believe that there are Republicans who think that any of their frontrunners for the nomination have any hope of beating President Obama. They've actually provided him with the best campaign material he could ask for.

The real race, however, is going to be for control of the Congress - especially the House of Representatives. Unless the Democrats can toss the GOP out of the lower house (and, ideally, get some more Senate seats), they'll face another couple of years of paralysis until the midterms.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting (and prescient?) bit of prognostication reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/28/kelly-mcparland-the-2012-presidential-result-you-read-it-here-first/
> 
> Like McParland and Frum I remain fascinated with the GOP's apparent determination to make Obama a two term president.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2011)

If, and it is still a big IF, Obama looks likely to get a second term then the best choice, *for America* and, indeed, *for the world*, is that the GOP gets solid majorities in both the House and the Senate - ideally getting 60 Senate seats, an unlikely prospect but it would be ideal. The President's only power, when the _loyal opposition_ controls the Congress, is the "bully pulpit," which Obama uses well. The simple fact, and I contend it is a fact, is that there are not enough _responsible_ Democrats in the entire 50 states to elect a _responsible_ Democratic Congress. You may not like some of the GOP legislators but when it comes to managing America they are orders of magnitude better than the Democrats - pretty much any and all Democrats.


----------



## GAP (30 Dec 2011)

The two pics you posted today pretty much sums up the entire electoral field......


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The two pics you posted today pretty much sums up the entire electoral field......




Sad, isn't it?  :'(  And this is America about which we are talking ... America: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt ... and now Obama or Gingrich? :crybaby:


----------



## Redeye (30 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If, and it is still a big IF, Obama looks likely to get a second term then the best choice, *for America* and, indeed, *for the world*, is that the GOP gets solid majorities in both the House and the Senate - ideally getting 60 Senate seats, an unlikely prospect but it would be ideal. The President's only power, when the _loyal opposition_ controls the Congress, is the "bully pulpit," which Obama uses well. The simple fact, and I contend it is a fact, is that there are not enough _responsible_ Democrats in the entire 50 states to elect a _responsible_ Democratic Congress. You may not like some of the GOP legislators but when it comes to managing America they are orders of magnitude better than the Democrats - pretty much any and all Democrats.



It would appear, if you look at sentiment in the US as reflected by polls, they don't agree - they're not too happy with the completely useless Congress at the moment. Your final contention I simply can't agree with. Most of the massive debt the USA has is thanks to Republican Congresses and their chronic misspending coupled with their total unwillingness to levy the taxes necessary to pay for their massive defence budgets, unnecessary military adventures, and so on. If you look at where debt has grown most in the US, it tends to be when the GOP is at the helm.

What we'll have to see if whether the American electorate wants more paralysis, or if they shift to giving the Democrats the ability to do something - anything. I'd venture to guess that that will be one of the ways they frame the debate over the coming year.


----------



## GAP (30 Dec 2011)

That sounds more like wishful thinking.


----------



## Redeye (30 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> That sounds more like wishful thinking.



Which aspect? The idea of a constructive discourse leading to people voting based on more than labels and attack ads? Probably, from everything I've observed of American politics.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2011)

Most of the massive debt of the US, if you include its future obligations, is tied to entitlement programs.  Generally, entitlements are not opposed by Democrats.


----------



## Redeye (30 Dec 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Most of the massive debt of the US, if you include its future obligations, is tied to entitlement programs.  Generally, entitlements are not opposed by Democrats.



Neither, however, are taxes to pay for those programs, which is the other side of the coin.

Half of the US government budget goes to maintenance of a massive defence apparatus that neither party is willing to take on with serious cuts. No serious discussion of fiscal responsibility can occur without that, I'd content. When President Obama concluded a treaty with Russia to further reduce nuclear arsenals, he was attacked by some on the right as somehow jeopardizing national security, a ridiculous assertion given the size of that arsenal - but the cuts will surely have paved the way to save a lot of money on maintenance thereof. Again, though, without defense cuts seriously on the table, any discussion of fiscal responsibility, in my opinion, is meaningless.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Dec 2011)

I agree with Redeye's point on the U.S defense budget - it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I agree with Redeye's point on the U.S defense budget - it's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.




You and Redeye are quite right - but when, not if, the US scales back it's global security obligations who, if anyone picks up the tasks? Do we (or Australia or Belgium of Chile, or, or, or ...) want to do more? I think not. Do we want China to be a global policeman?


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> when, not if, the US scales back it's global security obligations who, if anyone picks up the tasks?



Is occupying Iraq a global security obligation or a U.S. foreign policy decision?  Are these two separate things?  What is the real cost - in Divisions, Air Wings and Fleets - of global security?

I think the real problem in the U.S. security budget is bang for the buck.  13 Divisions (10 Army, 3 Marine) is all the land power that it gets out of 400 billion dollars.  There needs to be some hard choices on what is more important - frontline units or those 1,000 extra nuclear warheads.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2011)

I was thinking about two things:

1. Keeping the sea lines of communications open and safe for commerce; and

2. Being able to intervene, quickly and decisively, when a small local crisis becomes a threat to regional peace and security.

I don't know how far the US will have to cut - how many carrier battle groups, how many combat brigades - but my guess is that sometime before 2025 the US will have fewer of each, maybe something like seven Army and two Marine divisons, and proportionately (1/3?) fewer carriers, air wings and destroyers and submarines, too. That will make the world a somewhat more dangerous place - some "bad guys" will feel less afraid of US intervention and so on.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Dec 2011)

Frankly, the US probably needs a lot less Army and Marine Divisions, fewer nuclear weapons, with a Navy and Air Force about the same size as today, if all that it is concerned about is protecting itself and it's interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2011)

More speculation, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, about how Obama might turn things around and win a second term:



> Democratic fantasy ticket: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
> 
> Tom Blackwell
> 
> ...




I think a lot depends upon whether or not the GOP can come to its senses and select a candidate who can beat Obama - and right now Mitt Romney looks like the only one in the field who could do that. If it's a candidate of the _extreme_ right (almost anyone except Ron Paul* or Mitt Romney) then my guess is that Obama doesn't need much help.

_____
* Paul is the closest thing we have to a real Libertarian, so he defies the right/left categorization.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> .... 13 Divisions (10 Army, 3 Marine) is all the land power that it gets out of 400 billion dollars.  There needs to be some hard choices on what is more important - frontline units or those 1,000 extra nuclear warheads.



Actually, there are only eight active Army divisions. Just nickpicking  ;D


----------



## Redeye (31 Dec 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Frankly, the US probably needs a lot less Army and Marine Divisions, fewer nuclear weapons, with a Navy and Air Force about the same size as today, if all that it is concerned about is protecting itself and it's interests.



Precisely. I'm not going to speculate on where exactly the cuts come from or what the optimal manning that would meet the their needs - but I'd suspect that you could probably cut the entire force by 1/3 - maybe even 1/2 and they'd still be able to look after all of their interests without much trouble.

There has to be a process to do the cuts, though, because you have to account for the economic impact of phasing so much capability (and manning) out, and the FRP here seems to have illustrated some of the potential pitfalls with things like leadership gaps.

If American politicians wants to get serious about putting their fiscal house in order, though, they simply must start working on a plan to accomplish that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2011)

I think (hope) the debate in the USA - which must occur during the 2012 election campaign - will focus on *how* to cut: reduce combat power or (harder) attack the entrenched, wasteful, often corrupt procurement and basing issues.

Much as I am a HUGE fan of Pentagon R&D (and what it has done for the whole world) I am convinced that one could chop the procurement process, much the way one chops the head off a poisonous snake, and save tens of billions year after year after year. Some (too many) projects are funded because the defence industrial base (Ike's _"military industrial complex"_) is on welfare, and it's addicted to its welfare - just like some people are to theirs.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, there are only eight active Army divisions. Just nickpicking  ;D



10.  1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 25th Infantry.  1st Armored.  1st Cavalry.  82nd Airborne.  101st Air Assault.  10th Mountain.

Do a simple wiki check before you start nitpicking.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Frankly, the US probably needs a lot less Army and Marine Divisions, fewer nuclear weapons, with a Navy and Air Force about the same size as today, if all that it is concerned about is protecting itself and it's interests.



Probably.  I've seen proposals to turn most, if not all, the U.S. Army into a Reserve formation and just keep the U.S. Marine Corps active with the Gators/Carriers and the Air Force.

A robust Navy and Marine Corps with support from the Air Force certainly would achieve Edward Campbell's two objectives (which I concur with) for "global security".


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2011)

Agreed that the US spends on bases and military gear - and much of it is wasteful.  Also agreed that much of it may be unnecessary and effectively "welfare".

But......

It is possible to argue that for 4% of their GDP they:

Keep people off their streets;
Give them jobs in which they take pride;
Have something to show for the expenditure;
and Have a set of capabilities unmatched in the world.

If that 4% of GDP were cut to 2% what would the impact on the US and Global Economies be?
What would the unemployment rate look like?
How much of the "Peace Dividend" would end up going to fund welfare with nothing to show for the effort?

And that says nothing about the global economy impacts from having a less secure trading environment.

Canada can afford to increase its defence spending if it is invested in the internal economy (Australian subs, Australian Hawkei LTVs, Australian Bushmasters, Australian Catamarans.........Canadian LAVs, Canadian AOPS, Canadian CSCs) and not all spent offshore.  Somethings we can't do (Build F35 competitors for example).  But other things are well within our grasp.

I note that the Aussies aren't content with just satisfying their domestic defence requirements.  They aim to produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy.  Kind of like our (Swiss Designed) LAVs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Dec 2011)

The US does not spend more than "half" of its budget on defence, except perhaps by stretching the definition to include all the costs associated with security and past obligations necessitated by German, Japanese, and Russian adventurism.

Looking at the spending breakdown I'd be surprised if they could trim much more than $250B by heavily gutting personnel, operations, and procurement.  It would help, but let's not be fools by pretending a $250B cut is going to solve their spending problems.  The glaring fact is that their spending obligations exceed their ability to pay in anything except a highly devalued US dollar.


----------



## Redeye (31 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think (hope) the debate in the USA - which must occur during the 2012 election campaign - will focus on *how* to cut: reduce combat power or (harder) attack the entrenched, wasteful, often corrupt procurement and basing issues.
> 
> Much as I am a HUGE fan of Pentagon R&D (and what it has done for the whole world) I am convinced that one could chop the procurement process, much the way one chops the head off a poisonous snake, and save tens of billions year after year after year. Some (too many) projects are funded because the defence industrial base (Ike's _"military industrial complex"_) is on welfare, and it's addicted to its welfare - just like some people are to theirs.



The US procurement policy is indeed part of the problem and there's lots of room for savings. I remember reading a couple of years or so ago about new equipment that no one wanted being essentially foisted upon the US military. I think it was a naval ship that the focus of the article was - it was something that was viewed as the answer to a question no one asked. I think it was eventually cancelled. I wish I could remember where I saw it.


----------



## Redeye (31 Dec 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The US does not spend more than "half" of its budget on defence, except perhaps by stretching the definition to include all the costs associated with security and past obligations necessitated by German, Japanese, and Russian adventurism.



Whoops - you're right - it's about a quarter to a third looks like- the "half" thing I was thinking of referred to tax revenues. Still a massive chunk of the budget, and one which must be addressed.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I think it was a naval ship that the focus of the article was - it was something that was viewed as the answer to a question no one asked. I think it was eventually cancelled. I wish I could remember where I saw it.



Probably the Zumwalt Class.


----------



## Redeye (31 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Probably the Zumwalt Class.



That's the one.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Dec 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 10.  1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 25th Infantry.  1st Armored.  1st Cavalry.  82nd Airborne.  101st Air Assault.  10th Mountain.
> 
> Do a simple wiki check before you start nitpicking.





> Active Divisions
> 
> 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas
> 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
> ...



Eight. U.S. Army  webpage.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Eight. U.S. Army  webpage.



I think you are referring to US based divisions. The 2nd Infantry Division is in Korea and there is still a US Army presence in Germany.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2011)

2nd Inf Div Site

3rd, 4th and 5th Brigade Combat Teams of 2nd Div are hosted out of Fort Lewis, WA.  

4th Inf Div Site

4 ID is located at Fort Carson, Colorado.

Both are still very much active.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (31 Dec 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think you are referring to US based divisions. The 2nd Infantry Division is in Korea and there is still a US Army presence in Germany.



Hmmm ... you're right. The 2 ID is in Korea, As for Europe, there is still a U.S. Army presence in Europe, but according to this  webpage, there is no divisional unit. The last division in Europe was the 1st ID (The "Big Red One") and that was drawn back to the U.S. in 2006. Having said that, there still several units* in Europe under V Corps but not as a divisional unit. So thats nine divisions. After some more research their is also the 4 ID in Fort Carson, Co..  That's ten. Interesting why the webpage I linked doesn't reflect that. 

My apologies. 

* V Corps 
2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment (organized as a Stryker Brigade Combat Team)
170th Infantry Brigade
172nd Infantry Brigade
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team
12th Combat Aviation Brigade


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2012)

National defense is one of the reasons that we have governments (one of the the roles of government is to protect citizens from internal and external threats, while the Whestphalian system evolved because nation states are far superior in raising and organizing resources for military purposes than any of the competitors).

Now there can be (and should be) a debate as to how far the United States needs to go when protecting its citizens, and a second debate as to how to untangle the procurement process to make it faster and cheaper, but as Brad pointed out (as well as countless other commentators in media, the Internet and across the globe) the real area that needs reforming are the "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; along with welfare reform and business subsidies as secondary targets.

A very small step has been taken in eliminating $6 billion/year in ethanol subsidies, which suggests that doing very targeted cuts and eliminating individual programs one at a time may be the means to getting some traction on spending cuts. A "grand program" like the super committee failed to make even a trivial trillion dollar spending cut over a decade, so I can see the battle going to guerrilla warfare in committees for small cuts here and there.  The downline elections re going to be the means to get enough people in place to do this.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2012)

The problem is that that by and large people want programs like Social Security and Medicare, and they see programs like Medicaid as essential, and ultimately, you can either have everyone pay into healthcare for the less fortunate via taxation to fund a social program, or you can have everyone pay into healthcare for the less fortunate in the form of massively inflated healthcare costs that pass on the costs to those who use the system. Those costs don't magically disappear unless you decide to let the poor die in the streets without access to healthcare. Some Americans still seem to wonder why an Aspirin costs $10 at a hospital. The reason all the costs there are so inflated is that's how the costs of treating those unable to pay are covered. There's also the insane amount of administrative bloat that exists in the US system to compound that problem - but that's a whole separate complex issue.

My submission is that the issue the Americans have is not entitlement programs - but that they want the programs but don't want to pay for them. Granted there's definitely room in the way they do business to find major savings. You mentioned ethanol subsidies, that's one part of a complex, ridiculous series of problems in American agriculture that I'm starting to study with great interest. Again, that is a whole other complex kettle of fish.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the focus of debate in the 2012 campaigns will be - again, not so much at the Presidential level since I think that's all but a foregone conclusion, without credible opposition President Obama shouldn't have much trouble winning a second term - but for the Congress. The economy will likely be the focus, and the plans to fix it will have to come to the forefront. The Republicans will likely offer their usual position of tax cuts and deregulation, and the Democrats will again argue that they didn't work before, and there's no reason to expect they will now, especially when coupled with the current fiscal mess. The definition of insansity is what, again?

I'd love to see the Democrats put together a good solid plan that involves addressing the massive infrastructure problem the United States has, failing bridges and the like, as an effective stimulus plan. The money needs to be spent anyhow, at some point soon, and frankly, I can't see it being too hard for people in jurisdictions where there's crumbling infrastructure to believe that fixing them will bring much needed jobs to their communities. It'll be most interesting in districts whose Representatives have failed so spectacularly. Mostly I'm going to have to watch John Boehner's district, and see who's running against him. It's a solidly red area, but Boehner's "leadership" has been so ineffective that I wonder if it'll become a swing district. That are interests me as well because I have a friend running for office there as well (a municipal office, not Congress) and so I'm getting all sorts of updates on how the Democrats are organizing themselves there.

It'll be an interesting campaign though, I hope - lots to talk about - but I worry that it'll go the normal way. Attack ads and debates about things that don't matter at all instead of real issues.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> National defense is one of the reasons that we have governments (one of the the roles of government is to protect citizens from internal and external threats, while the Whestphalian system evolved because nation states are far superior in raising and organizing resources for military purposes than any of the competitors).
> 
> Now there can be (and should be) a debate as to how far the United States needs to go when protecting its citizens, and a second debate as to how to untangle the procurement process to make it faster and cheaper, but as Brad pointed out (as well as countless other commentators in media, the Internet and across the globe) the real area that needs reforming are the "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; along with welfare reform and business subsidies as secondary targets.
> 
> A very small step has been taken in eliminating $6 billion/year in ethanol subsidies, which suggests that doing very targeted cuts and eliminating individual programs one at a time may be the means to getting some traction on spending cuts. A "grand program" like the super committee failed to make even a trivial trillion dollar spending cut over a decade, so I can see the battle going to guerrilla warfare in committees for small cuts here and there.  The downline elections re going to be the means to get enough people in place to do this.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Jan 2012)

Redeye: 


> It'll be an interesting campaign though, I hope - lots to talk about - but I worry that it'll go the normal way.* Attack ads* and debates about things that don't matter at all instead of real issues.



Attack Ads. Attack Ads. You ain't seen nothing yet. Obama and is aiming for one billion dollars for his personal re-election campaign. One billion dollars. What do you think he is going to spend it on?

Attack Ads will set new standards of viciousness.

It would be interesting to really really dig deep to see the actual source of some of these contributions.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye:
> Attack Ads. Attack Ads. You ain't seen nothing yet. Obama and is aiming for one billion dollars for his personal re-election campaign. One billion dollars. What do you think he is going to spend it on?
> 
> Attack Ads will set new standards of viciousness.



He can spent it on attacking - or he can spend it on presenting ideas - I hope for the latter, but American politics doesn't lend well to expecting that.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to really really dig deep to see the actual source of some of these contributions.



You don't have to since it's all public information. http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do

I'd imagine most of it comes from small donations from average Americans. They have a pretty good fund raising machine, I think they send emails out every few days. My wife, being an American citizen, gets them all the time. I think she plans to get more involved with Democrats Abroad this year because I'll be away and it'll give her a bit broader social network.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Jan 2012)

I realize it is public record. Lets say someone gives Bloggins 200 bucks. That's 50 bucks for you Bogglins, and we will send 150 bucks for you, in your name, to, quote THE President unquote.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I realize it is public record. Lets say someone gives Bloggins 200 bucks. That's 50 bucks for you Bogglins, and we will send 150 bucks for you, in your name, to, quote THE President unquote.



I'm not even going to touch that with a ten foot pole, other than to say, I don't suppose you happen to have any evidence to suggest that happens?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jan 2012)

Yup, no such thing as bogus campaign contributions  :facepalm:

FFS! Welcome to 2012 :


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> He can spent it on attacking - or he can spend it on presenting ideas - I hope for the latter, but American politics doesn't lend well to expecting that.


FTFY.  Politics isn't about ideas: it's about marketing.  Looks matter.  Rational discourse is above the masses.  It's all groupthink and going with the flow and trying to not upset the boat.  Most of all, it's to appear to not be a knuckle-dragger or insensitive.  And it's all over, not just in the USA.  

I agree, however, that the attack ads (etc) in the USA appear to be more viscious and prevalent.  But then again, I don't think the USA could fart without the world noticing.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .......
> 
> You mentioned ethanol subsidies, that's one part of a complex, ridiculous series of problems in American agriculture that I'm starting to study with great interest. Again, that is a whole other complex kettle of fish.
> 
> ....



I wouldn't look too hard or make it too complex when it comes to agriculture.

In a world of finite resources (although infinite possibilities) one of the most finite is arable land.  There are only so many hectares available to convert sunlight to carbon calories.  Those carbon calories can be used as food or as fuel.  If they are used as fuel they are not available as food.  Food is scarce.  Fuel isn't.  

Digging up carbon from the ground permits us to build, and feed, more people.
Burning fields of food in cars will inevitably lead to higher prices, more starvation and fewer people.

Ethanol, Biodiesel, Switchgrass Biomass......it makes no odds.   A burnt food is a wasted food.   And that is equally true in Europe where they are burning their agricultural surpluses to inflate local prices and support their ridiculous Common Agricultural Policy that is keeping African farmers trapped on backyard plots.

You want a simple, understandable policy for Democrats and Republicans to run on?  Don't Burn Food.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jan 2012)

"the issue the Americans have is not entitlement programs - but that they want the programs but don't want to pay for them"

Looking around the world, that is really just a template for the critical economic problems of the day:

"the issue the [nationality] have is not entitlement programs - but that they want the programs but don't want to pay for them"

But looking at the numbers, a focus on whether the problem is "willingness to pay" is a diversion from the real problem: the required amounts are literally much larger than the ability of a nation to produce wealth - "ability to pay".


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jan 2012)

"The Republicans will likely offer their usual position of tax cuts and deregulation, and the Democrats will again argue that they didn't work before, and there's no reason to expect they will now, especially when coupled with the current fiscal mess."

The Democrats seem to be on board with at least some tax cuts (FICA holiday).  Their only real objection seems to be with respect to income taxation rates "for the rich", notwithstanding the fact that unless "rich" is stretched to include "middle class", there literally is not enough income to solve the revenue/expenditure imbalance.  As to regulation, plenty of new regulations were added in the last three years, many of which are claimed to be counterproductive to growing the economy.  Is that also to be included among things that have been tried and did not work?


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup, no such thing as bogus campaign contributions  :facepalm:
> 
> FFS! Welcome to 2012 :



Evidence please. And evidence, specifically, that only one particular party engages in such practices. Otherwise I'll just ignore the assertion as being baseless.


----------



## Redeye (2 Jan 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "The Republicans will likely offer their usual position of tax cuts and deregulation, and the Democrats will again argue that they didn't work before, and there's no reason to expect they will now, especially when coupled with the current fiscal mess."
> 
> The Democrats seem to be on board with at least some tax cuts (FICA holiday).  Their only real objection seems to be with respect to income taxation rates "for the rich", notwithstanding the fact that unless "rich" is stretched to include "middle class", there literally is not enough income to solve the revenue/expenditure imbalance.  As to regulation, plenty of new regulations were added in the last three years, many of which are claimed to be counterproductive to growing the economy.  Is that also to be included among things that have been tried and did not work?



The Democrats do indeed agree with certain tax cuts, particularly the FICA holiday in the hope it might spur hiring and consumption. It's true that "taxing the rich" alone will not solve their problems, and they do have to address spending, and neither party seems to have a grasp on how to do that, not least in part because they won't touch defence spending.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2012)

The math is pretty simple and frightening, the real question is which candidates are willing to look the electorate in the eye and tell them (or follow through once elected):

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/12/27/its-the-math-stupid-seven-devastating-facts-about-2012/



> *It’s the Math, Stupid!: Seven Devastating Facts About 2012*
> by Wynton Hall
> 
> As we enter 2012, the presidential candidates would do well to wrap their minds and messages around these seven mathematical facts:
> ...



As Brad says, people have been fed the idea that you can have something and not pay for it, but as Margaret Thatcher told us, we have run out of other people's money. A surge in economic growth is needed for many reasons (employing people and deleveraging come to mind); the multi trillion dollar explosion in spending since the Democrats took the Congress in 2006 demonstrates what does not work and emptied the till, so the only open options are in the opposite direction anyway.

The Presidential election is highly symbolic, but unless there is a sea change in the political culture, the range of options and the time frame to fix the damage will narrow down to nothing. Look for the downline elections and see what sorts of candidates and solutions are presented (and win) at the State, municipal, local level and the judiciary to see how American politics will play out for decades to come.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2012)

Two good, true, ideas jump out at me from this and the related US Economy threads:

1. _Entitlements_, for which someone must pay or which, if we/they run out of payers, must be reformed (a nice word for slashed), are THE most serious US budget problem; and

2. The way to achieve necessary *reforms*, in the mid to long term, is for the GOP, led, for the moment, by the _Tea Party_ movement, inchoate though it may be, to gain control of city and state governments.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2012)

Who needs attack ads when you simply substitute an alternative reality?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/02/obama-re-election-congress/



> *Obama Enters the Twilight Zone*
> Peter Wehner
> 01.02.2012 - 11:25 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## exabedtech (2 Jan 2012)

This generation has grown up with the understanding that you do not have to balance your income with expenses.  You can expend whatever you choose by simply borrowing more. Should that fail, you can always declare bankruptcy and start all over again.  When you compound that view with the fact that the government has only so many years to offer enough handouts to ensure re-election,  the one thing you can count on is that rather than solutions, there will be finger-pointing.  Will the US be able to solve its economic mess?  Not in my opinion unless of course they can find a crapload of oil since that's what REALLY makes the world go round.  Yes, Canada has a better banking system but the real reason we are weathering the storm has more to do with Ft MacMurray than Ottawa.  Thank god for that!  
So where does this leave the US?   They may simply need to get used to lower standards of services and of course lower standards of living.  Not like they'd be the first empire to go down that road.


----------



## Redeye (3 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Who needs attack ads when you simply substitute an alternative reality?
> 
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/02/obama-re-election-congress/



A great link with great spin. Why did President Obama blast the GOP for this? Because it was a poison pill-filled bill the GOP pass, one he had stated that he would veto because it contained a number of provisions unrelated to payroll tax hikes that were totally unacceptable to the White House. In fact, it wouldn't likely have gotten that far, because it never would have passed the Senate either, because of all the extraneous provisions. Here's a counterpoint story that explains it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/13/1044900/-House-votes-on-payroll-tax-extension-plan-today?via=blog_595751

Moral: don't believe everything you read until you get the whole story.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Jan 2012)

> Moral: don't believe everything you read until you get the whole story



Unless redeye reads it and agrees - and then of course, it's gospel. You don't see how silly it looks to constantly refute others' sources while touting your own? We get it. Nothing is true on Fox, everything is true on MSNBC.


----------



## Redeye (3 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Unless redeye reads it and agrees - and then of course, it's gospel. You don't see how silly it looks to constantly refute others' sources while touting your own? We get it. Nothing is true on Fox, everything is true on MSNBC.



Actually, I generally check the facts from multiple sources. This particular example stuck out because it was such a glaringly inaccurate statement. Most interestingly, as I understand it MSNBC didn't really cover it in any depth either - but it took me about 30 seconds looking for more of the story to get more detail. While several sources had the info, the DailyKOS, which often has great commentary, covered the key points in the most detailed but concise manner.

Let's recall that no less than seven separate studies found Fox News viewers to be more misinformed than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even report watching news regularly. I can't help that, as Stephen Colbert said, "Facts have a well known liberal bias."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, I generally check the facts from multiple sources. This particular example stuck out because it was such a glaringly inaccurate statement. Most interestingly, as I understand it MSNBC didn't really cover it in any depth either - but it took me about 30 seconds looking for more of the story to get more detail. While several sources had the info, the DailyKOS, which often has great commentary, covered the key points in the most detailed but concise manner.
> 
> Let's recall that no less than seven separate studies found Fox News viewers to be more misinformed than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even report watching news regularly. I can't help that, as Stephen Colbert said, "Facts have a well known liberal bias."



The only sources you check are the ones that agree with your POV. Your skull is brainlocked to reject anything outside your norm.

We understand your game. You are not a 'go to' person for this stuff. 

It's not suprising the the Ignore button gets so much use.


----------



## Redeye (3 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only sources you check are the ones that agree with your POV. Your skull is brainlocked to reject anything outside your norm.
> 
> We understand your game. You are not a 'go to' person for this stuff.
> 
> It's not suprising the the Ignore button gets so much use.



Hey, you don't have to agree with reality, it doesn't really care what you think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2012)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _CNN_:

http://www.cnn.com/


> Dramatic night in Iowa
> *Romney edges Santorum by just 8 votes in caucuses*
> 
> Mitt Romney beat rival Rick Santorum in what appears to be the closest-ever margin of victory in a GOP presidential contest. Ron Paul finished a close third.
> ...



Romney:     30,015 votes = 25%
Santorum:  30,007 votes = 25%
Paul:           26,219 votes = 21%
Gingrich:     16,251 votes = 13%


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2012)

What the electorate actually wants seems distinctly different from what is on offer:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/3/what-happened-to-spending-cuts/



> *GHEI: What happened to spending cuts?*
> Debt ceiling to surge to $16.4 trillion
> By THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Nita Ghei-The Washington Times Tuesday, January 3, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye:





> Let's recall that no less than* seven separate studies found Fox News viewers to be more misinformed* than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even report watching news regularly.



Please list them. I only heard of one which you previously quoted without reference. I know where the author of that "study" stands.

Please write slowly as I do watch FOX News regularly.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2012)

The Presidential campaign:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamas-reelection-strategy-bypass-congress/?print=1



> *Obama’s Reelection Strategy: Bypass Congress*
> 
> Posted By Phil Kerpen On January 5, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 78 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye:
> 
> Please list them. I only heard of one which you previously quoted without reference. I know where the author of that "study" stands.
> 
> Please write slowly as I do watch FOX News regularly.



Summarized here - with links to all the relevant studies. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/?mobile=nc

Have a nice day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Summarized here - with links to all the relevant studies. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/?mobile=nc
> 
> Have a nice day.



Most of what is there, including the links, seems hardly unbiased or independent. Simply, produced by one side to prove their point of the other. Hardly scientific or even balanced. 

"Don't believe in Global Warming? You must be a Fox watching idiot." 

"Don't believe in Obamacare? You must be a Fox watching idiot."

and on, and on, and on.

These 'studies' prove nothing. 

They simply espouse the same attitude that is shown by one or two perpetual posters here for the rest of us. "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot."


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Most of what is there, including the links, seems hardly unbiased or independent. Simply, produced by one side to prove their point of the other. Hardly scientific or even balanced.
> 
> "Don't believe in Global Warming? You must be a Fox watching idiot."
> 
> ...



I'm glad you read them in detail (including the ones which are journal-published studies which explain, in detail, their methodolgy) and are qualified to pronounce their findings wrong. Wait, hang on a second... Again, I'm sorry that reality seems to be too liberal for you. That's not my fault, it's the way things are.

The problem that the studies identify isn't opinions, it's that those opinions are not rooted in facts. The opinions of the viewers are formed based on misinformation, not the actual valid information. The pervasive problem is that media has shifted the debate from reality to invented "interpretations". People I've met who are "vehemently opposed" to Obamacare don't actually know much about what the law says. We saw the same thing with the hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque" which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero. When people are debating over what are very carefully crafted narratives entirely divorced from reality, there's a problem. Fox, in particular, is one significant source of that problem. Studies show it. Can you actually refute the studies? If so, go ahead. If not, well...


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Again, I'm sorry that reality seems to be too liberal for you. That's not my fault, it's the way things are...


I'm sorry, but I have to interject.  Reality is neither liberal nor communist nor republican nor anything.  

The one study I found on my own sampled some 600 or so natives of New Jersey.  It also found that Fox News viewers more correctly identified who the "occupy wall street" protesters were than viewers of MSNBC.  

How about an objective study of the broadcasts themselves?  You know, how much time on each story, which order they appeared, the use of subjective language, and so forth.

But the implication that your opinion is "reality" suffers not only from hubris, but also from elitism.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2012)

I know if I wanted to pretend I was intellectually unbiased/superior, I'd cite a blog by Chris Mooney -- "author of the bestselling book _The Republican War on Science_" -- when discussing "objective" reports on US politics and/or science...

    :


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I have to interject.  Reality is neither liberal nor communist nor republican nor anything.
> 
> The one study I found on my own sampled some 600 or so natives of New Jersey.  It also found that Fox News viewers more correctly identified who the "occupy wall street" protesters were than viewers of MSNBC.
> 
> ...



There's a lot of fairly objective reporting out there. Sites like factcheck.org and politifact.com do that. They'll flesh out, in great detail, the story behind something and assess its accuracy. It's notable that last time I spent some time comparing, there seemed to be a lot more half-truths (which is, incidentally, a full lie), false ratings, and what Politifact classes as "pants on fire lies" coming from major right wing pundits - the Fox News types. That doesn't mean that more liberal pundits are immune to it. However, many of them appeared to be of less magnitude, and more random. Fox engages heavily in shaping the debate to favour a particular opinion and is documented for doing so. There are fringe left outlets who surely do, but they're not the mainstream media. They're are non-credible as HotAir.com, Pajamas Media, World Net Daily, and so on. The "liberal media" canard is basically nonsense, but it gets parroted because it fits that narrative that is shaped by the right. Yes, that is a subjective comment, and there's no way around that, but I find that there simply isn't the sort of fanned flames of hysteria in the centre and the reasonable left. 

The key to it all, I've learned, is to remember something I learned long ago from someone in the music business: "Remember, commercially produced music is the filler between advertisements on radio." News media is the same - it's all filler between ads, unless it isn't required to sell ads. Which is why public media is pretty important, and why it's great that technology can fill the gaps. It's a double edged sword though. Just as bloggers can add a whole lot of value and analysis to a debate (and often do so for little or no pay, just because they're interested and engaged), they can also add a lot of noise, and it's easy to touch off mass hysteria over nothing by carefully shaping a message, creative editing, and so on. That's why it's so important to look at as many sources as possible and eventually you can synthesize an understanding of what is really going on.


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I know if I wanted to pretend I was intellectually unbiased/superior, I'd cite a blog by Chris Mooney -- "author of the bestselling book _The Republican War on Science_" -- when discussing "objective" reports on US politics and/or science...
> 
> :



I chose that link as it had the link to all the studies in one place. Unfortunately, someone has to produce all content. It doesn't come from thin air.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jan 2012)

Great stuff redeye. Thanks for the enlightenment.



> There's a lot of fairly objective reporting out there. Sites like factcheck.org and *politifact.com * do that






> We saw the same thing with the hysteria over the "Ground Zero Mosque" which is neither a mosque, nor at Ground Zero





> While we're considering the term "Ground Zero Mosque,” we also wondered whether it was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center that includes a swimming pool, gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, a library and art studios.


 Source: politifact.com - one of your recommended sources



> there seemed to be a lot more half-truths (which is, incidentally, a full lie),



So did you tell a half-truth (full lie, per you) when you said this?  "which is neither a mosque" understanding of course, that technically there will be a mosque within the cultural centre, per your sources.


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Great stuff redeye. Thanks for the enlightenment.
> 
> Source: politifact.com - one of your recommended sources
> 
> So did you tell a half-truth (full lie, per you) when you said this?  "which is neither a mosque" understanding of course, that technically there will be a mosque within the cultural centre, per your sources.



For those interested, here's the link to the entire piece: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/19/rick-lazio/ground-zero-mosque-ground-zero/ - it includes discussion on how to characterize the project which is something much more broad. We could could argue that but there's no reason to - the point I think remains made.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jan 2012)

> We could could argue that but there's no reason to - the point I think remains made.




Yes - when someone right of center tells a half truth, it is essentially a lie, gullability or a flawed source.

When you do it, using your own recommended source, it is technical minutia, a misunderstanding or something else.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Hey, you don't have to agree with reality, it doesn't really care what you think.



Reality, from other sources, seems to disagree with you

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-fox-news-viewers-least-informed/


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2012)

No less than seven separate studies found Redeye to be more misinformed than viewers of CNN or MSNBC - or even that people who don't even read his posts regularly.


----------



## Jed (6 Jan 2012)

:rofl: Good one R62


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Yes - when someone right of center tells a half truth, it is essentially a lie, gullability or a flawed source.
> 
> When you do it, using your own recommended source, it is technical minutia, a misunderstanding or something else.



Or it is minutiae, and I hey, I was wrong. I didn't know they included in the planned to include anything that specifically would be considered a mosque - more a cultural centre. In any case, it was spun relentlessly - and it's far more than a mosque. More to the point (and this actually demonstrates the point about reframing issues - that we're discussing something relatively minor), it shifted the discussion from anything reasonable to nonsense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2012)

American partisan politics has already sunk to depths that even Joseph McCarthy might find hard to imagine, and both Democrats and Republicans, aided by a generally uncritical media and a highly partisan _blogosphere_, are to blame for the smears, mud slinging and downright lies that are, now, the rule rather than the exception. We do not need to import those low standards into Army.ca.

My signature line, by John Stuart Mill, sums up what I think is the only acceptable level of discourse. Those who cannot admit that the other fellow might have a legitimate point of view and those who cannot accept that their point of view might be less than perfect are not debating or discussing, they are propagandizing.


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> American partisan politics has already sunk to depths that even Joseph McCarthy might find hard to imagine, and both Democrats and Republicans, aided by a generally uncritical media and a highly partisan _blogosphere_, are to blame for the smears, mud slinging and downright lies that are, now, the rule rather than the exception. We do not need to import those low standards into Army.ca.



Or Canada in general - the contrast is stark and honestly, it's disturbing.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My signature line, by John Stuart Mill, sums up what I think is the only acceptable level of discourse. Those who cannot admit that the other fellow might have a legitimate point of view and those who cannot accept that their point of view might be less than perfect are not debating or discussing, they are propagandizing.



I'd further that to say that the best way to defeat a fringe opinion isn't to silence or ignore it, but to shine the light on them. Generally, such things don't hold up to scrutiny, after all. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to look deeper and see the reality.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The problem is that too many people aren't willing to look deeper and see the reality.



You're the only one here, right ?

 :


----------



## Redeye (6 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You're the only one here, right ?
> 
> :



Nope. But I'm quite happy saying that some people clearly don't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Or Canada in general - the contrast is stark and honestly, it's disturbing.
> 
> I'd further that to say that the best way to defeat a fringe opinion isn't to silence or ignore it, but to shine the light on them. Generally, such things don't hold up to scrutiny, after all. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to look deeper and see the reality.




I would argue that most partisan political opinion, from the parties themselves, from the media and, especially from the _blogosphere_, is fringe opinion. Most of the people I know, Americans and Canadians, are *mildly* partisan - while being able to admit that their party is imperfect and the opposition party/parties is/are not evil incarnate.  But many of us seem to lose our objectivity (and civility) when we are online and we condemn, utterly, that with which we simply disagree and support, vehemently, that which is, generally, more appealing to us.  :-\


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Jan 2012)

> Or it is minutiae, and I hey, I was wrong. I didn't know they included in the planned to include anything that specifically would be considered a mosque - more a cultural centre. In any case, it was spun relentlessly - and it's far more than a mosque. More to the point (and this actually demonstrates the point about reframing issues - that we're discussing something relatively minor), it shifted the discussion from anything reasonable to *nonsense*.




I suppose, since we're talking more than one instance, minutiae works.


----------



## Kalatzi (7 Jan 2012)

*Senator John McCain endorses President Obama!*

link here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-john-mccain-mistakenly-endorses-obama/article2294013/

This is fabulous news! Finally America is getting over the bitter partisan divide that has so long hindered them!

Things are really looking up!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2012)

Thank you Kalatzi; with that - let's stay on topic.


----------



## Haletown (7 Jan 2012)

A viable alternative to Obamassiah & the Dumbocrats or the Rabidpublicans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Redeye (7 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> A viable alternative to Obamassiah & the Dumbocrats or the Rabidpublicans.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM&feature=player_embedded



 I think there's quite a few people down here who would probably think that simply handing the reins over might not be so bad!

I'm going to catch some of what one of my favourite pundits calls the "GOP Clown Car" debate tonight. I'm most interested to see how Santorum's theocratic bent plays in New Hampshire, and if he and Newt get called on their rather racist comments over the last couple of days. Sure you were saying "blah", Rick.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I think there's quite a few people down here who would probably think that simply handing the reins over might not be so bad!
> 
> I'm going to catch some of what one of my favourite pundits calls the "GOP Clown Car" debate tonight. I'm most interested to see how Santorum's theocratic bent plays in New Hampshire, and if he and Newt get called on their rather racist comments over the last couple of days. Sure you were saying "blah", Rick.



I hear they also eat the babies of democrats after the debate is over....  :facepalm:


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2012)

If they handed the reins over to us, where would Americans go to get healhealthcare for which they are willing to pay?  And how on Earth can we as Canadians pretend to be so awesome at everything?  I mean, we can't go around, all smug-like, saying stuff like "Pfffft....we're so much better than americans...."


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2012)

One of the reasons the current nomination process seems to be a gong show may be related to the ideas presented here: the "establishment" is going all out for a "low Beta" candidate, while outsiders want a "high Beta" candidate to break open the establishment and enact a much more radical agenda:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/safe-moderate-electable_616153.html



> *Safe + Moderate ≠ Electable*
> Low-beta isn’t always better.
> Lawrence B. Lindsey
> January 16, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 17
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And how on Earth can we as Canadians pretend to be so awesome at everything?  I mean, we can't go around, all smug-like, saying stuff like "Pfffft....we're so much better than americans...."



Who's pretending?  And I always tell everyone in my office that Canada is way better. And to get ready, socialized medicine is coming. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Jerry Pournelle on some of the longer term changes in US electoral politics:

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=4588



> A President must try to unify both his party and his country. It is not possible to win the 2012 election without attacking Obama. That will make it hard to unify the nation to begin with.
> 
> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/pro-gingrich-group-posts-anti-romney-ad-featuring-mccain/
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jan 2012)

I haven't a clue who Jodi Kantor is, but she alleges that the Obamas had a pretty lavish affair in the Whitehouse.  If a future President Mitt Romney secretly flew the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in for a private party, or a future President Rick Santorum had a secret Papal Mass, and those events became public, would there be an outcry?  I imagine that there would.  

Anyway, I have no horse in this race.  I'd much rather that both sides in this upcoming election would avoid ad hominem attacks, because I think that when people fail to counter an opponents argument (no matter what that argument is), and instead make personal attacks, then the person or side making those has just admitted defeat.  It's even more confusing when both sides do it....  


(edited for format)


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2012)

How else do you point out differences between your position and your opponents ? From my conservative view point the only real conservatives in the race are Perry and Santorum. Huntsman and Romney are on the left.Newt is a moderate once he sat on the couch with Speaker Pelosi supporting global warming,he was dead to me.Perry hasnt gotten off the ground.The media is giving Romney favorable press so that tells me the democrats want him to be their opponent.They did the same with McCain. There just isnt any wow factor with htis group of politicians.But any of them is better than Mr Obama.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How else do you point out differences between your position and your opponents ?


I would offer by avoiding talking about your opponent's character, and instead about their position.    EG: "You oppose/support 'x', therefore you are a bigot/hater/unintelligent".  That's the kind of argument I mean.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer by avoiding talking about your opponent's character, and instead about their position.    EG: "You oppose/support 'x', therefore you are a bigot/hater/unintelligent".  That's the kind of argument I mean.



I agree thats a bit over the top which is why I dont vote for democrats. :camo:


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I agree thats a bit over the top which is why I dont vote for democrats. :camo:


[tangent]  From my *very* unscientific view from afar, it _appears_ to me that the democrats are quicker to resort to ad hominem attacks than the republicans.  (Neither side of any divide is innocent).  You know, calling G.W. Bush a moron, so and so a kook, etc. [/tangent]


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2012)

From the election of 1800.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer by avoiding talking about your opponent's character, and instead about their position.    EG: "You oppose/support 'x', therefore you are a bigot/hater/unintelligent".  That's the kind of argument I mean.



That's the high road of politics, however there are some that don't get the point unless its just low-brow attacks on a person, based either on facts or just simply made up.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's the high road of politics, however there are some that don't get the point unless its just low-brow attacks on a person, based either on facts or just simply made up.


I didn't just mean the politicians.  I mean even people on here, myself included, who have used terms such as "bozo" or "clowns" or "idiots" when talking about "the others"


----------



## Redeye (9 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> But any of them is better than Mr Obama.



Why? What ideas have any of them advanced that are in any way credible?

It's interesting watching the candidates try to grapple with how 2011 was the best year for new jobs being created since 2005, to try to claim somehow it's in spite of the President.

Frankly, most of what I hear in the debates ranges from absurdity (sure, states can outlaw contraception), tired rhetoric (including Reagan worship), insanity (let's invade Iran, or the even more insane statement by Rick Perry about re-invading Iraq), etc. I don't hear a coherent alternative plan. I don't hear anything that is too likely to resonate I think. I do hear a lot of gaffes (Santorum's bizarre statement about blacks, Newt's almost as cryptic one), and a lot of noise.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

Here is a possible outcome of a electoral split between a Democrat Administration and a Republican House and Senate. The downline elections are looking ever more important. WRT the Congress, the House is quite active, but the Democrat Senate is where bills go to die; they have not even proposed or passed a budget in over 900 days:

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0106fsjk.html



> *The New Authoritarianism*
> A firm hand for a “nation of dodos”
> 6 January 2012
> 
> ...



The other nightmare scenario is a Capital Strike (such as the one in 1937-38) where business simply refuses to invest since they cannot predict the outcomes of myriad new regulations and taxes being imposed (you might say there is a capital strike happening now in the small business sector, and probably in the medium sized sector as well, large firms can use crony capitalism to continue to function [at least so far]).


----------



## Redeye (9 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT the Congress, the House is quite active, but the Democrat Senate is where bills go to die; they have not even proposed or passed a budget in over 900 days



The House is quite active?! Doing what, exactly? They've passed no substantial bills - nothing to deal with the economy broadly, and a series of poison pills which die in the Senate because they are ridiculous. There's a reason the Congress has an approval level comparable to syphilis, and I don't think it's the Senate.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Jan 2012)

Redeye, a suggestion. IMHO, you should commence each post with, quote IMHO unquote, as you are so humble.

I realize you may feel that my suggestion is: ridiculous, (not) credible, absurd, tired rhetoric, insanity, (in)coherent, (full of) gaffes, and racist. 

Note: That was from _your last_ three posts. You outdid yourself in the second post.


Added: _your last_


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jan 2012)

It's too bad that the Republicans do not have a moderate conservative candidate that would appeal to independents and conservative Democrats.  With this current slate, Pres. Obama is almost assured a victory in November.

IMHO:
Romney: Boring, flip-flops, too "liberal" for hard Republicans (if our Liberals were as "liberal" as Romney, I would consider voting for them)

The Rest: Bat-$h!t crazy


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The Rest: Bat-$h!t crazy


This is exactly what I meant earlier.  Are you trying to say that "I don't agree with what they are saying, therefore they are crazy, because no sane person would say or believe what they say?"  That makes as much logical sense as this:







Or are you trying to say "the rest have ideas that are too leftwing/rightwing for me, and I don't agree with their positions".


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> It's too bad that the Republicans do not have a moderate conservative candidate that would appeal to independents and conservative Democrats.  With this current slate, Pres. Obama is almost assured a victory in November.
> 
> IMHO:
> Romney: Boring, flip-flops, too "liberal" for hard Republicans (if our Liberals were as "liberal" as Romney, I would consider voting for them)
> ...



It's pretty obvious that the only actual contenders are Romney and Gingrich, and frankly, I don't think that Gingrich will overcome his unpopularity in his own party. Romney doesn't really seem to be able to sell the fact that "Obamacare" is heavily derived from his own state, the plan he created. It'll be fairly easy for the Dems to work with that, disarming one of the main things that the parties differ on.

President Obama's re-election is all but guaranteed, so I suspect the real work and focus is going to be on the Congressional races.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> *President Obama's re-election is all but guaranteed*


Famous last words.  In 1992, shortly after the First Gulf War, during the Democratic Primaries, SNL had a skit in which the object was to put out a patsy to get his "ass kicked by President Bush"...

Of course, it didn't turn out so well for the Republicans.  A lot can happen between now and then.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Famous last words.  In 1992, shortly after the First Gulf War, during the Democratic Primaries, SNL had a skit in which the object was to put out a patsy to get his "*** kicked by President Bush"...
> 
> Of course, it didn't turn out so well for the Republicans.  A lot can happen between now and then.



Hence "all but". However, the way things are shaping up there's not much chance of a losss.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Hence "all but". However, the way things are shaping up there's not much chance of a losss.


That's my point.  In 1992, it was "all but" and things were shaping up for a Bush landslide re-election.  Alas, Bill made it to the Whitehouse


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I meant earlier.  Are you trying to say that "I don't agree with what they are saying, therefore they are crazy, because no sane person would say or believe what they say?"  That makes as much logical sense as this:
> 
> Or are you trying to say "the rest have ideas that are too leftwing/rightwing for me, and I don't agree with their positions".



Fair enough.  I deserved that.

The point I was making was that were I a Yank Republican, I wouldn't have much hope at the moment.  This should be a sure win for them, but with these (in my opinion) lack-lustre candidates, I think Pres. Obama will still be President this time next year.

But I guess things can change.


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2012)

Geez....at least the race would have been more interesting, if not less informed, if Palin had run.........there really isn't much in the way of potential in the present batch.....at least not enough to upset Obama.....

If there had been a credible candidate, IMHO, Obama would be toast....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2012)

I think these primaries are clouding the real issues. When the GOP has a candidate, assuming that candidate is credible, then the whole party can run against Obama, not other Republicans.

I do not think Obama's reelection is a sure thing, maybe, right now, it is 53%-47%, giving full weight to the value of incumbency. He _might_ go up if the economy improves ... he might falter if the GOP unites around their candidate.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think these primaries are clouding the real issues. When the GOP has a candidate, assuming that candidate is credible, then the whole party can run against Obama, not other Republicans.
> 
> I do not think Obama's reelection is a sure thing, maybe, right now, it is 53%-47%, giving full weight to the value of incumbency. He _might_ go up if the economy improves ... he might falter if the GOP unites around their candidate.



I don't know about the GOP getting their collective shit together.  They look like they are going to unravel like Grandma's ball of yarn as our NDP seem to be starting to do as well.


----------



## Redeye (10 Jan 2012)

If the 2011 trend in the economy continues that should help President Obama - as the GOP candidates stumble all over themselves to try to explain why it's a bad thing that job growth has been strong, and such things. It's really the gaffes that will power things along though, we'll have to see how that happens. I'm hoping there's a solid backlash against both Boehner and Cantor's sets. There's also the problem of the fact that the Senate now requires a supermajority to pass anything since the GOP has brought their obstructionism there too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2012)

I think we are seeing the worst and best of the primary system in action.

It provides a way for the most partisan elements of each party to lay down their positions and see how potential candidates react. Right now, for the GOP, it looks like a circular firing squad - everyone shooting at each other. And it looks like paradise for the Democrats who, having an incumbent president, are not in the process.

But when the primary end the GOP candidate will have endured pretty much all the scrutiny and mud slinging that any opposition can muster and (s)he will be able to fight against Obama, not against other Republicans.

There is some question about the whole Republican party uniting behind any candidate - I suspect Romney may lose the religious right, but I still don';t think Obama is a shoo-in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If the 2011 trend in the economy continues that should help President Obama - as the GOP candidates stumble all over themselves to try to explain why it's a bad thing that job growth has been strong, and such things. It's really the gaffes that will power things along though, we'll have to see how that happens. I'm hoping there's a solid backlash against both Boehner and Cantor's sets. There's also the problem of the fact that the Senate now requires a supermajority to pass anything since the GOP has brought their obstructionism there too.




The economic trends for 2012 are somewhat less horrendous than in 2010 and 11, but they are not good, not for Americans - housing prices are still falling, unemployment is still growing and so on.

The national debt, including entitlements, now is greater than the GDP.

Obama is not in a "happy place."


----------



## Zartan (11 Jan 2012)

I still see the election as far from guaranteed. The problem is the matter of votes. At this time, I see the downward trend of voter turnout returning with a vengeance. The virgin-voters that Obama was able to curry in 2008 will be large part, gone. Immigrants, the young, minorities, etc - the President has, by and large, failed to hold on to them. These people are not going to vote Republican either, they are simply not going to vote. As for the Republicans, it seems as though each candidate serves to alienate one element of their base. Romney, Huntsman and, dare I say, Gingrich (for different reasons) can not sit well among the evangelicals. Paul, while loved by some is feared by many, while Santorum should make the non-evangelicals uncomfortable. I feel it is less a matter of who wins votes now, versus who loses more. This I feel could win the Republicans the election.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jan 2012)

Kernewek said:
			
		

> I still see the election as far from guaranteed. The problem is the matter of votes. At this time, I see the downward trend of voter turnout returning with a vengeance. The virgin-voters that Obama was able to curry in 2008 will be large part, gone. Immigrants, the young, minorities, etc - the President has, by and large, failed to hold on to them. These people are not going to vote Republican either, they are simply not going to vote. As for the Republicans, it seems as though each candidate serves to alienate one element of their base. Romney, Huntsman and, dare I say, Gingrich (for different reasons) can not sit well among the evangelicals. Paul, while loved by some is feared by many, while Santorum should make the non-evangelicals uncomfortable. I feel it is less a matter of who wins votes now, versus who loses more. This I feel could win the Republicans the election.



That's the problem that dominates the US process - or at least seems to. It's not about getting people excited to vote for you (though President Obama did manage to do that in 2008, getting a lot of people engaged and interested in the process), it's about hoping that large voting blocs stay home. It seems to me that Democrats hope to find a way to get the evangelical set to stay home, hoping a candidate for the Republicans doesn't resonate with that, and the Republicans would rather minorities remain generally disenfranchised. To that end, they seem to want to try to make it harder and harder to register to vote, and they also seem to be fans of gerrymandering where they can (Ohio seems to be the latest place I read about this being tried). Ultimately, it's a sad comment on a system when this is what the main victory considerations are.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jan 2012)

For those who can't be bothered to read Redeye's posts:












(Posted with tongue firmly in cheek)  ;D


----------



## Haletown (11 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For those who can't be bothered to read Redeye's posts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent summary  :nod:


----------



## TheHead (11 Jan 2012)

Swastikas should probably be swapped with crosses.  Just saying


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jan 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Swastikas should probably be swapped with crosses.  Just saying


Then find your own pic and post it.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2012)

For people who don't think voter fraud is a potential problem:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/



> *VIDEO: NH poll workers shown handing out ballots in dead peoples’ names*
> Published: 1:15 PM 01/11/2012	 | Updated: 3:56 PM 01/11/2012
> 
> By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2012)

I hope someone explained the legal consequences to the asshats investigators that voter fraud carries huge fines and prison terms.

And at the same time explain to O'Keefe the concept of conspiracy.

I'm sure they would all make wonderful prison wives.


----------



## Redeye (11 Jan 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I hope someone explained the legal consequences to the asshats investigators that voter fraud carries huge fines and prison terms.
> 
> And at the same time explain to O'Keefe the concept of conspiracy.
> 
> I'm sure they would all make wonderful prison wives.



Fortunately, given his track record, O'Keefe has pretty close to zero credibility, so we can safely dismiss this story. And yeah, hope O'Keefe has yet another run in with the law.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jan 2012)

The economy is bad and his policies wont make it better. If folks think they are worse off now than in 08,the democrats are toast.Nothing has changed from the November election.As an added bonus gas prices have risen over .30 a gallon this week.If this continues  through the summer it will be bad for the democrats.Mr Obama's plan to give Russia top secret missile information plus cutting civilian and military jobs have people upset.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2012)

People who can ignore documentary evidence or shrug it off as "not credible" are bound to be surprised all the time when reality does not conform to their views.

This is an interesting thing to watch. I haven't followed the Ron Paul campaign, but now that the numbers are starting to show up from the early primaries, it seem he is making some real inroads. How this will play out over the remainder of the primaries is the real interesting question:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/11/the-best-not-romney-is-someone-who-is-ge



> *Ron Paul's Secret: The Best Not-Romney Is Someone Who Is Genuinely Not Like Mitt Romney*
> 
> Peter Suderman | January 11, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (12 Jan 2012)

Ron Paul's an interesting candidate, that's for sure. He's certainly come off as more consistent, and a lot of commentary suggest that his popularity comes in part from younger voters who are sick of wars and military adventurism, not looking forward to paying for any of it it, and like what on the surface seems to jive with more liberal social views - things like decriminalization/legalization of cannabis, for example. When I read anything written by Paul supports I tend to notice they don't have a very deep grasp of economics or monetary system, which helps too.

His problem could be that his past is coming back to haunt him. Earlier writings of his (which he's trying hard to distance himself from) suggest he's a bit of a racist, and his view of things like civil rights and treatment of persons with disabilities will probably push away a lot of those same voters, as will his stance on abortion. I don't get how people talk about small, limited government out of one side of their mouth and then about limiting the freedom of people to make their own choices about reproduction out of the other. But that's just me. It seems like there's some liberal types who think Ron Paul just might be a good alternative. Frankly, most of his ideas about the economy are somewhat terrifying, but again, that's my take.

Paul beating out Romney, as unlikely as that is, would make for a very, very interesting race. There's certainly a lot of things that he and President Obama could have a vibrant debate about, which under Romney won't really happen. Romney will be forced to continue to try to defend his supposed dislike of President Obama's reforms, while the Obama campaign can simply continue highlighting that despite those efforts, their program is largely inspired by Governor Romney's own policies. There's also the attacks on his economic ideas coming in from a myriad of sources.

Watching "the blogosphere" and "the Twitterverse", I'm laughing that Romney's critics are saying the same things often said about the Liberal Party here - that if you don't like what they're selling today, come back tomorrow. One said something like, "Romney is expected to win the NH Primary", to which another responded, "Yeah, but which Romney?" He certainly sounds like he's trying to come off as all things to all people, and I don't know how well that will sell in the general election campaign. The Primary campaign is bringing out lots of points that will feed well into that campaign though.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2012)

A Romney-Paul Ticket?

Paul seems to be going out of his way not to get involved in the personality wars and was encouraging his people to stay away from slagging Romney.

I haven't heard anything that suggests Romney has the knives out for Paul personally..... but I haven't been listening that closely.

Could Romney and Paul find enough common ground?  Ahdunno.  Jus' Curious.

I'm hoping the Yanks don't elect another "Leader". A "Governor" would do just fine.


----------



## Redeye (12 Jan 2012)

Romney-Paul would be interesting indeed! I don't know if that would actually work, though. I can't see Paul accepting a VP position, especially when his position seems to be diametrically opposed to the rest of the field in a lot of ways.

I don't think anyone has knives out for Paul really - in Romney's case it's mostly for Gingrich, I think.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A Romney-Paul Ticket?
> 
> Paul seems to be going out of his way not to get involved in the personality wars and was encouraging his people to stay away from slagging Romney.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> as will his stance on abortion. I don't get how people talk about small, limited government out of one side of their mouth and then about limiting the freedom of people to make their own choices about reproduction out of the other.



He's arguing that everyone has a right to not have their lives ended prematurely.  And, of course, he's arguing  that human life starts at conception.  So, in short he's saying that a person's right to life > a person's right to choose.   I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but it's not the false dichotomy you posit above.  

To counter his argument (his bill failed to become law), you only have to argue that human life begins later than conception, that's all.


----------



## Redeye (12 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> He's arguing that everyone has a right to not have their lives ended prematurely.  And, of course, he's arguing  that human life starts at conception.  So, in short he's saying that a person's right to life > a person's right to choose.   I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but it's not the false dichotomy you posit above.
> 
> To counter his argument (his bill failed to become law), you only have to argue that human life begins later than conception, that's all.



It's the spillover effects, which some lefties do take to extremes, but have worthy arguments. Should people who miscarry be investigated for negligence? What of all those lives that begin at conception that we never know about because non-implantation, etc? In any case, I wasn't looking to get into the weeds on what is a complex issue that's still not closed in the USA, but rather to note that it's interesting that Congressman Paul attracts a lot of generally liberal people, but when they discover his stance on things like abortion, they'll likely lose interest quickly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2012)

I agree ...






Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-january-2012/article2287771/?from=2299341


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Jan 2012)

The NE US is pretty liberal.So called moderate Republicans may do well there but the real test is how well they draw votes in the south and the midwest. The Northeast,rustbelt and west coast is pretty much democrat country.I want a conservative but its looking like Romney unless Palin jumps in.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2012)

I still think Governor Palin will play Kingmaker in the downline elections like she did in 2010. Her endorsement for President will probably be done at the last possible minute to discombobulate the Legacy media. There is lots of time to prepare for 2016...


----------



## Kalatzi (15 Jan 2012)

I don't suppose thatThe REpublicans with the possible exception of Ron Paul will get back to their roots. 

"I want to take you back to the 1850s, a time of tension just before the American Civil War. A new politics was spreading across the lands the likes of which few could comprehend. The result was the creation of a new political party in a small schoolhouse within a small Wisconsin town. This party was to be called the ‘Republican Party’. Assuming you already know all that perhaps it is best I just dive right into the subject at hand. 

...

The NRA was chiefly concerned with the concentration of wealth, something they tied to the horrors of the old world. They felt there should not be a right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth in this country. The association soon turned towards what is described as “a spectrum the most revolutionary anarchist and socialist currents in American life”. This hostility towards concentrated wealth made them hostile to the South especially seeing as how it was governed largely by wealthy gentry using slavery in replace of paid labor, further amassing their wealth concentration and depriving laborers of good wages. 

Some historians have tied the NRA’s most important members to being under the influence of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and of course Abolitionism. By the late 1840s they had taken up the issue of a new Homestead Act 

...

In 1860 a paramilitary group of the Republican Party was formed called the Wide Awake Republicans, identifying themselves as ‘Wide Awakes’. One reported incident was on October 3, 1860 in Chicago when 10,000 Wide Awakes marched in a three – mile precession. By the end of 1860 the New York Tribune had estimated there to be over 400,000 drilled and uniformed Wide Awakes nationwide"

Perhaps there is a "Sound asleep" movement?

Link to article here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread797646/pg1


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2012)

Too bad, in a way, the best of a very weak field, and I'm including Barack Obama amongst the very weakest, has left the race, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/huntsmans-exit-may-seal-romneys-fate-in-gop-race/article2303927/


> Huntsman’s exit may seal Romney’s fate in GOP race
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> 
> ...




Maybe, I think the odds are about 50/50, Romney can beat Obama in November ... it is pretty certain that none of the others can. I think Obama has done enough damage to America ... I doubt that even Sarah Palin could do significantly worse.


----------



## Redeye (16 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Too bad, in a way, the best of a very weak field, and I'm including Barack Obama amongst the very weakest, has left the race, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/huntsmans-exit-may-seal-romneys-fate-in-gop-race/article2303927/
> 
> Maybe, I think the odds are about 50/50, Romney can beat Obama in November ... it is pretty certain that none of the others can. I think Obama has done enough damage to America ... I doubt that even Sarah Palin could do significantly worse.


s

Polls consistently put Romney behind Obama - regardless of which agency does the poll (and the various ones seem to have an "ideological bent". Rasmussen, for example, constantly seems to report results more favourable to the right, Gallup seems to wind up a little to the left. Most pundits have been pretty sure that it would be Romney that would eventually get the nomination and that the others were basically sideshows. Huntsman seemed to be fairly reasonable and moderate, but some of my favourite pundits immediately wrote him off exactly for that reason. He was reasonable enough to court independents, he might even have caught the attention of Democrats disenchanted with President Obama.

Romney's got a lot of conservative detractors, though, and I wonder how that will play in the final contest. It won't be hard for people to thrash him for a variety of reasons. He's seen as being a weathervane, selling whatever he thinks people want to hear on any given day. He can be attacked for his credibility on healthcare, given that "RomneyCare" is (despite his claims otherwise) more or less identical to the premise of "ObamaCare", but actually apparently covered undocumented workers, and apparently covered abortion services. He's being vilified for the nature of his business, and the quotemining job done by Perry will haunt him long after the primaries are over, I suspect.

How all those things play out with the various constituents of the Republican Party will be what matters. They may decide to hold their nose and vote for him to prevent President Obama being re-elected, and I don't know that that will be enough.

President Obama, on the other hand, will have to run on his record. First, he'll have to convince the "emoprog" far left that in fact he has accomplished things during his term. They whine constantly that he's not done enough when he has done quite a lot. Then he'll have to highlight the state of the economy (the so called "bikini graph") will highlight this. He'll need to have Congressional candidates thoroughly and publicly thrash the Congress for deadlocking US politics since the 2010 midterms to highlight that obstruction was their main problem. This, too, shouldn't be hard. There's some great clips out there that showed that the GOP had no intention of working to fix the country's problems because their main concern was blocking re-election. They've got footage of a few people saying as much, most notable GOP Senate Leader McConnell.

They can also attack the GOP on being beholden to special interests - ask why they might be perceived as putting pledges to the likes of Grover Norquist ahead of their duties to all Americans, for example. They're going to have to build a strong narrative, but I think they can do it. I certainly expect that whatever the results are (and however they are interpreted - remember that Mr. Boehner likes to talk about doing "what the American people want" despite his House's approval rating  being somewhat lower than that of gonorrhea among Americans), they will amount to a categoric rejection of how divided and ineffective the governing of the country has been. It'll thus be a matter of at who's feet they lay the blame.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Polls consistently put Romney behind Obama ...



Maybe ... this doesn't look all that "consistent:" Obama leads in 5, Romney in 3 and they are tied in 1.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jan 2012)

Yeah and the polls had Harper in trouble until the votes started getting counted. 

Polls only give the results that the person commissioning it want. They are absolutely that last thing to depend on for insight or decision.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah and the polls had Harper in trouble until the votes started getting counted.
> 
> Polls only give the results that the person commissioning it want. They are absolutely that last thing to depend on for insight or decision.



The real trick is to understand what the poll is telling you. How many people actually believed the "Orange Crush" was real despite repeated polling results? I am on record as not believing (and so are lots of others); the trend was so far outside of expectations that *we* simply denied it. OTOH as Recceguy points out, there was lots of ambiguity about how well the CPC was going to do according to the polls, *the one that counted* gave them a mandate and a majority government.

WRT 2012, this will be very much an election about the margins. With almost 50% of Americans not paying income tax, there is a huge built in constituency for the status quo and any politician who supports it. The "independents" are going to be the ones who decide, and the margin of victory will be fairly small. The TEA Party movement is very right in focusing on the downline elections which are much more "winnable" and also have the potential to craft real, if small scale changes at the local level.


----------



## Redeye (16 Jan 2012)

The "50% don't pay income tax" meme is going to go nowhere, I suspect. It's relatively meaningless, in comparison to interest in how little some pay at high income levels. I'm wondering what the product of Romney's evasive attitude to his taxes will be in the end.

I'm not a betting man, but I won't be surprised if the Tea Party fades into oblivion afterward. That said, I won't be shocked if their impact is significant in some areas.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The real trick is to understand what the poll is telling you. How many people actually believed the "Orange Crush" was real despite repeated polling results? I am on record as not believing (and so are lots of others); the trend was so far outside of expectations that *we* simply denied it. OTOH as Recceguy points out, there was lots of ambiguity about how well the CPC was going to do according to the polls, *the one that counted* gave them a mandate and a majority government.
> 
> WRT 2012, this will be very much an election about the margins. With almost 50% of Americans not paying income tax, there is a huge built in constituency for the status quo and any politician who supports it. The "independents" are going to be the ones who decide, and the margin of victory will be fairly small. The TEA Party movement is very right in focusing on the downline elections which are much more "winnable" and also have the potential to craft real, if small scale changes at the local level.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2012)

If conservatives in the US decide their choice is "vote for" and go all fratricide on Romney, he is done.  If they decide this is a "vote against" election, I think Obama is done.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2012)

So where does the President and his administration get their cues from?:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/worst-white-house-aide_616736.html?nopager=1



> *The Worst White House Aide*
> Valerie Jarrett’s perfect record . . . for giving bad advice.
> Jan 23, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 18 • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI
> 
> ...


----------



## Kalatzi (18 Jan 2012)




----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jan 2012)

Something to throw into the mix.....


> Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline
> 
> Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.
> 
> This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.


Statement via transportationnation.org, 18 Jan 12

More from the U.S. State Department:


> Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.
> 
> Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, on November 10, 2011, the Department announced that it could not make a national interest determination regarding the permit application without additional information. Specifically, the Department called for an assessment of alternative pipeline routes that avoided the uniquely sensitive terrain of the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The Department estimated, based on prior projects of similar length and scope, that it could complete the necessary review to make a decision by the first quarter of 2013. In consultations with the State of Nebraska and TransCanada, they agreed with the estimated timeline.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (18 Jan 2012)

Well now that President Obama nixed the XL Pipeline, what are his chances at reelection now? I guess energy security and economy concerns are not his administration's priority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2012)

While it will make the _environmentalists_ happy they were not going to vote GOP anyway. The GOP will play this hard, trying to convince the _independents_ that Obama has his priorities skewed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> While it will make the _environmentalists_ happy they were not going to vote GOP anyway. The GOP will play this hard, trying to convince the _independents_ that Obama has his priorities skewed.



...............and Harper's priorities right, about  our choices.

I think Obama just pissed off (on?) a whole lot of hard working, salt of the earth people, from all parties, who just want to work. And in more than one State also.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think Obama just pissed off (on?) a whole lot of hard working, salt of the earth people, from all parties, who just want to work. And in more than one State also.



I agree but November is a long way off and the public usually has the attention span of a goldfish.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I agree but November is a long way off and the public usually has the attention span of a goldfish.



Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work



Good point. I have to agree, i just have little to no faith in the public at large.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not if you were depending on the pipeline for a few years of sorely needed work



Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.


----------



## GAP (18 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.



What would have not been considered? Does building the pipeline mean there's an automatic leak? 

On that basis we would still be living in caves, because we would be afraid of doing any damage to anything or anywhere.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but that's a pretty small number of people, all things considered.



And many elections have been won, or lost, by those very same small amounts.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2012)

Smart Republicans can play the Keystone XL pipeline like a violin. There are the 200,000+ direct jobs in building the pipeline, then throw in the putative families of the people who were hoping for a pipeline job, the suppliers looking for contracts to provide materials and services to construct the pipeline and the secondary markets down to lunch truck operators who could have sold meals and coffee to pipeline workers. ("This could have been _your_ job. Vote for us and we will approve the Keystone XL pipeline.")

Adding all these people together and you are now talking about perhaps a million people negatively affected. 

As a BTW this isn't playing well in Alberta either; the leader of the Wild Rose Alliance has castigated the new leader of the Alberta PC party for not aggressively pushing the project, since this takes a potential $2 billion in revenues and economic growth off the table for Alberta. Albertans will push the pipeline to BC, and many here have noted there is a potential market for a pipeline to Eastern Canada, I'm sure someone is calculating the potential market and ROI for that project even as we speak


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2012)

On a different subject, Newt Gingrich is having the race card played against him for the "Foodstamp President" remark. A bit of history has come to light which cancels the race card:

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/18/exclusive-document-private-1980-gingrich-memo-to-ronald-reagans-campaign-manager-reveals-former-speakers-racial-attitudes/



> *EXCLUSIVE: 1980 Memo Shows Gingrich Urged Reagan to Reach Out to Black Voters*
> by Wynton Hall
> 
> With members of the mainstream media now hurling charges of using racially coded language against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Big Government has uncovered a private memorandum written over three decades ago that offers a unique glimpse into Mr. Gingrich’s longstanding attitudes about race.
> ...



Now you could make the counter argument that speaking to a group like NAACP is simply walking into the lion's den, but symbolism is important and a man offering persuasive arguments might be able to sway some people to reexamine their premises.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> What would have not been considered? Does building the pipeline mean there's an automatic leak?
> 
> On that basis we would still be living in caves, because we would be afraid of doing any damage to anything or anywhere.



I meant, the number of people who were "waiting for jobs" related to the pipeline is relatively small in terms of the US electorate.


----------



## cupper (18 Jan 2012)

I think you will hear an approval as an October surprise, if not mid summer. 

Read the statements closer. The reason for rejection was solely due to the arbitrary deadline put in place by the Republican House. There was never enough time to do the environmental studies for the new routes under that deadline. If you didn't see this coming back in November when they were fighting over it, you need to get your eyes checked.

And the job numbers are all in how the you define it. First off, the direct jobs was 20,000 with an over all 250,000 long term indirect jobs (per the oil industry lobbyists). But the 20,000 jobs are temporary construction jobs for the term of the construction. AND that is 20,000 person-years, not actual jobs. As is the 250,000 person-years of long term employment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/2011/12/19/gIQApUAX8P_story.html

But the Tree Huggers need to give their heads a shake as well. It's not like Tar Sands oil isn't coming into the US now. There was a very interesting story on NPR that basically shoots down the myth that not building the Keystone pipeline will keep dirty tar sands oil from getting into the  to US markets. It's all ready being shipped in by tanker from the terminal in Richmond BC. And the various other existing pipelines carrying oil into the Western US are carrying Alberta Tar Sands oil. And one company has applied for a permit to reverse the flow of a pipeline coming into Ontario so that Tar Sands oil can be carried back to the US.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/18/145347485/blocking-keystone-wont-stop-oil-sands-production


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Smart Republicans can play the Keystone XL pipeline like a violin. There are the 200,000+ direct jobs in building the pipeline, then throw in the putative families of the people who were hoping for a pipeline job, the suppliers looking for contracts to provide materials and services to construct the pipeline and the secondary markets down to lunch truck operators who could have sold meals and coffee to pipeline workers. ("This could have been _your_ job. Vote for us and we will approve the Keystone XL pipeline.")
> 
> Adding all these people together and you are now talking about perhaps a million people negatively affected.



Two hundred thousand direct jobs?! You may as well say "eleventy billion". It's not that much more ridiculous. The materials were bought overseas, and already as I understand it purchased, so that's not an issue. A study commissioned by Trans Canada made such outlandish claims, other studies (like this one: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf) are somewhat more conservative. They also dissect that Trans Canada study as best they can and even if the real numbers lay somewhere in the middle, I don't think the benefits are anywhere near what was claimed. I was interested to try and find a number for how many people were involved in the building of the Interstate Highway System just to get an idea, unfortunately I couldn't find anything clear cut.

Here's the best part of the briefing paper:



> A Note on Energy Independence
> and “Ethical Oil”
> This paper is primarily concerned about jobs, but the findings below also shine light
> on another claim made by the industry—that KXL will get the US further on the road
> ...





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a BTW this isn't playing well in Alberta either; the leader of the Wild Rose Alliance has castigated the new leader of the Alberta PC party for not aggressively pushing the project, since this takes a potential $2 billion in revenues and economic growth off the table for Alberta. Albertans will push the pipeline to BC, and many here have noted there is a potential market for a pipeline to Eastern Canada, I'm sure someone is calculating the potential market and ROI for that project even as we speak



And it seems a whole slew of people are going to push back. It'll be interesting indeed to see what happens.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Counter argument that speaking to a group like NAACP is simply walking into the lion's den, but symbolism is important and a man offering persuasive arguments might be able to sway some people to reexamine their premises.



But that's not playing the race card? Okay then...

Gingrich, for all his sage advice, hasn't accepted NAACP invitations in the past. And his connecting African-Americans with food stamps (as did Santorum) doesn't match with the reality that most food stamp recipients are in fact white. It does fit that good ol' "welfare queen" stereotype that sells well.

One pundit, I can't remember who, was wondering why when there are so few Black Republicans in Iowa where this whole mess arose any candidate was making such statements.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jan 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I think you will hear an approval as an October surprise, if not mid summer.
> 
> Read the statements closer. The reason for rejection was solely due to the arbitrary deadline put in place by the Republican House. There was never enough time to do the environmental studies for the new routes under that deadline. If you didn't see this coming back in November when they were fighting over it, you need to get your eyes checked.



You beat me to it. The rejection now is based on how the issue was brought up by the GOP - and President Obama played it pretty well, I think. I don't see any reason why one would assume the issue's totally dead - but Obama can use this to thrash the GOP later, and get it done anyhow.


----------



## Jed (18 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You beat me to it. The rejection now is based on how the issue was brought up by the GOP - and President Obama played it pretty well, I think. I don't see any reason why one would assume the issue's totally dead - but Obama can use this to thrash the GOP later, and get it done anyhow.



In my opinion, this is all smoke and mirrors by President Obama and it will backfire, ala the sponsorship scandal business with the Liberals in our country.


----------



## Kalatzi (19 Jan 2012)

Reproduced under the fair use of the copyright act. 

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks  Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - 9:37 AM 
 My wife’s favorite Republican candidate for amusement is Newt, but myself, I enjoy watching old Rick Perry. The man strikes me as a fool in a suit, almost a cartoon version of a Texas governor. Here is his comment the other night on the government of Turkey: “When you have a country [Turkey] that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes, not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it. [Cheers, applause]” (To fully appreciate this, read it aloud in a Foghorn Leghorn voice.) 

As the estimable Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post put it, Perry’s characterization of Turkey is an off-the-charts jaw dropper. In fact, observes Kessler, a veteran diplomatic correspondent, “The ruling party of Turkey is moderately Islamic, but it generally has not interfered with the country’s secular traditions. . . . As for foreign aid, Turkey is a wealthy country that already gets virtually no foreign aid from the United States.” 

In addition, notes Juan Cole, “Turkey has peace-keeping troops serving alongside US ones in Afghanistan, and in danger of being killed by Taliban, and it is a profound insult to reward their friendship with the US by this kind of trash talk.” 

link here http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/18/i_m_gonna_miss_rick_perry_the_foghorn_leghorn_of_presidential_candidates


----------



## Redeye (19 Jan 2012)

Fortunately, Rick Perry seems to have realized he's the punchline to an unfunny joke and finally packed it in. He was really just making more headaches for diplomats by going on about things it seems he's not very conversant on.

(Funny enough, I'm apparently sharing my camp with Turks next month)



			
				Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the fair use of the copyright act.
> 
> Posted By Thomas E. Ricks  Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - 9:37 AM
> My wife’s favorite Republican candidate for amusement is Newt, but myself, I enjoy watching old Rick Perry. The man strikes me as a fool in a suit, almost a cartoon version of a Texas governor. Here is his comment the other night on the government of Turkey: “When you have a country [Turkey] that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes, not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it. [Cheers, applause]” (To fully appreciate this, read it aloud in a Foghorn Leghorn voice.)
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2012)

It's still a long way until "Super Tuesday," 6 Mar, when we have Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary) and Virginia (primary).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Fortunately, Rick Perry seems to have realized he's the punchline to an unfunny joke and finally packed it in. He was really just making more headaches for diplomats by going on about things it seems he's not very conversant on.
> 
> (Funny enough, I'm apparently sharing my camp with Turks next month)



Yeah, it's not like Obama would say anything stupid... like saying he had visited 57 states, and confusing a dead medal of honour winner with a live one when briefing the 10th Mountain Division... oh wait, he did.


----------



## Redeye (19 Jan 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's not like Obama would say anything stupid... like saying he had visited 57 states, and confusing a dead medal of honour winner with a live one when briefing the 10th Mountain Division... oh wait, he did.



Of course, everyone makes gaffes. It happens.

He didn't accuse an allied government of being run by "Islamists", suggest they were heavily aid dependent, and suggest they support terrorism though.


----------



## TheHead (19 Jan 2012)

Now he needs to make a video on how he's not ashamed to be dropping out of the Presidential election and blame it on homosexuals in the military and the war on Christmas.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Of course, everyone makes gaffes. It happens.
> 
> He didn't accuse an allied government of being run by "Islamists", suggest they were heavily aid dependent, and suggest they support terrorism though.



Well, Turkey's government is moving towards more radical Islam and they were the 11th largest recipient of US Aid.  Perhaps he over exaggerated things, but he wasn't necessarily wrong in either regard


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2012)

An interesting bit of speculation about the toxic horsetrading that goes on behind the scenes. The American labour movement should have been outraged and outspoken over the decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline (and anyone who thinks otherwise needs only to look at the ever shifting rationals for delaying or blocking the descision; effectively so long as this administration is in power there will be no approval for any reason). While the documentary evidence is not openly available, the reasoning in the article makes a great deal of sense:

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/01/19/why-obama-turned-down-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/?print=1



> *Why Obama Turned Down the Keystone XL Pipeline*
> Posted By Ron Radosh On January 19, 2012 @ 1:17 pm In Uncategorized | 18 Comments
> 
> With our campaigner-in-chief’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to sections of the United States, President Barack Obama made what columnist Joe Klein today on Morning Joe called perhaps the worst political mistake of his entire presidency. After all, the scheduled pipeline meant, above all, the potential for perhaps 20,000 jobs immediately and many more in future years.
> ...


----------



## cupper (19 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's still a long way until "Super Tuesday," 6 Mar, when we have Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary) and Virginia (primary).



You can pretty much take Virginia out of that mix, since only Romney and Paul will be on the ballot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You can pretty much take Virginia out of that mix, since only Romney and Paul will be on the ballot.




Good point: that's 46 out of 2,286 that are not available to Gingrich or Santorum. 1,144 delegate votes are needed to secure the nomination - Virginia's elected delegates are 4% of what's needed to win.


----------



## GAP (20 Jan 2012)

Interesting comment on a commentary of the keystone pipeline....
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/19/fps-peter-foster-follow-the-keystone-money-then-expose-the-misinformation/


anon996724974
What is scaring this Albertan and my oilmen friends is that we are hearing that the Stelmach government cut our Royalties on our raw bitumen from $14.57 U.S. per barrel down to a pathetic .48 cents. Why should we give away our children's future at a ridiculously low return on 900,000 barrels per day to create 20,000 jobs in the U.S. Jobs that Canadians should have here.The oilmen I know don't think it would create more than about 300 permanent jobs for Canadians. What's wrong with refinning it in Canada and looking after the Canadian market first as our former premier and hero Peter Lougheed is saying? We are also being told that the Chinese are bringing in their own workers to work in the oilsands to supply the Enbridge line to the west coast. They won't have to abide by Canadian laws. They can pay them low wages and work them long hours. What will this do to the Canadian workers? Will the other oil companies start demanding that they be allowed to hire the cheap Chinese labor also? If any of this is true we have got to get these lines stopped before Canadians really get screwed.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2012)

Media is loosing control of the narrative, and don't like it a bit. I suspect there will be many more "Newt" moments (he is pretty fast with the comeback), and more Republican candidates will start responding to the Legacy media in the same way:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/01/20/can-a-standing-o-shake-a-worldview/




> *Can a Standing O Shake a Worldview?*
> Jan 20th, 2012 by Elizabeth Scalia
> 
> If you did not see the standing ovation given Newt Gingrich when went “smackdown” on John King during last night’s debate, here it is:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2012)

Facilitating voter fraud by controlling the Secretary of State position. Good thing these people got caught, and it will be v ery interesting to see if an investigation is launched to follow the trail (and where it might lead):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/not-just-a-democrat-dirty-trick-but-a-crime.php



> *NOT JUST A DEMOCRAT DIRTY TRICK, BUT A CRIME*
> 
> A few years ago, as part of its strategy of facilitating voter fraud as a means of winning close elections, the Democratic Party undertook a campaign to secure as many Secretary of State offices in swing states as possible. From those perches, the Democrats would be in a position to oversee elections and enforce (or decline to enforce) election laws. That strategy has been quite successful, but the Democrats suffered a setback in Iowa in 2010 when conservative Republican Matt Schultz won an upset victory in the Secretary of State race. Since then, Iowa Democrats have targeted Schultz.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (21 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Facilitating voter fraud by controlling the Secretary of State position. Good thing these people got caught, and it will be v ery interesting to see if an investigation is launched to follow the trail (and where it might lead):
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/not-just-a-democrat-dirty-trick-but-a-crime.php



I guess you just haven't gotten around to issuing - no wait - I mean just cutting and pasting - your sharp condemnation of James O'Keefe's antics?


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2012)

Why would you want to condemn a person who has publically exposed a flaw in the US voter registration process and makes it possible to close a loophole and eliminate a source of voter fraud?

In the past it was called investigative reporting.


----------



## cupper (22 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why would you want to condemn a person who has publically exposed a flaw in the US voter registration process and makes it possible to close a loophole and eliminate a source of voter fraud?
> 
> In the past it was called investigative reporting.



The USDJ calls it conspiracy to commit voter fraud. :nod:


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> The USDJ calls it conspiracy to commit voter fraud. :nod:



But if they didn't actually cast a vote is it voter fraud?


----------



## cupper (22 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But if they didn't actually cast a vote is it voter fraud?



Even an attempt to cast a vote is a crime.
(regardless of intent)

On another note, everything we have all said prior to today is all moot.

It seems the Presidential race is all but over, and Newt Gingrich will be the winner.

Why you may ask? See for yourself.... 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/chuck-norris-backs-gingrich-in-nomination-battle.html


----------



## Kalatzi (23 Jan 2012)

What Newt Learned From Nixon
"Conservatives may denounce class warfare, yet by shrewdly combining the politics of class with the politics of culture, Newt Gingrich won his first election in 14 years, humbled Mitt Romney and upended the Republican Party.

He also exposed profound frailties in Romney as a candidate, throwing him badly off-balance on questions related to his personal wealth, business career and income taxes. Unless Romney finds a comfortable and genuine way of talking about his money, he will present President Obama’s team a weakness that they’ll exploit mercilessly. The country is thinking more skeptically about wealth and privilege in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Romney has not adjusted. 

Gingrich skillfully set up his opponent to step on the landmine of class by transforming Romney from his self-cast role as a successful businessman into a heartless financier more interested in profits than in job creation. "

Linke here - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_newt_learned_from_nixon_20120122/

Looks like Mit could ne Red meat for Either "Eye of Newt" or Obama

"Well, what have we here? Said the big old bear - Nom! Nom! Nom!"

Now If Ron Paul cal learn from this ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jan 2012)

Mitt Romney looks like an aluminum siding salesman.

"Trust me. Would I screw you?"


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2012)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Linke here - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_newt_learned_from_nixon_20120122/
> 
> Looks like Mit could ne Red meat for Either "Eye of Newt" or Obama
> 
> ...



Just what are you trying to say? I am confused by your gibberish.

Please clarify.


----------



## cupper (23 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Just what are you trying to say? I am confused by your gibberish.
> 
> Please clarify.



So it wasn't just me then. :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I guess you just haven't gotten around to issuing - no wait - I mean just cutting and pasting - your sharp condemnation of James O'Keefe's antics?



Since I haven't been able to find them, can you please linkback to your posts decrying the illegal exposure of US surveillance efforts against the financial system of Islamic terror groups by the NY times during the Bush administration?


----------



## Redeye (24 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since I haven't been able to find them, can you please linkback to your posts decrying the illegal exposure of US surveillance efforts against the financial system of Islamic terror groups by the NY times during the Bush administration?



I'm sorry, non sequitur much?

So, what was with the Florida primary debate last night? All this nonsense about Cuba I kind of expected. For what it's worth, without the blockade giving Fidel some legitimacy, I suspect that the USSR's collapse would have ended Cuba's "revolution", but the bad guy to point to made it easier to rally Cubans around their leadership and endure the "special period". When they then got onto Terri Schiavo, I was really shaking my head, and like David Frum, I was wondering when Elian Gonzalez was going to come up for discussion. I think of all the debates I've watched (which is most of them), this one was probably the worst. I laughed at Frum's Twitter feed. I can almost imagine it won't be long before he throws his hands up and endorses President Obama.

Newt's winning SC will be interesting when people also look at Romney's tax returns and the grudging manner in which he finally released them. I think Newt would be the better candidate for Obama, because he's probably a lot easier to beat, but we'll see how it goes.

It did set the stage for an interesting State of the Union speech tonight.


----------



## cupper (24 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I laughed at Frum's Twitter feed. I can almost imagine it won't be long before he throws his hands up and endorses President Obama.



You may not be far off. Frum is so dissatisfied with the way the GOP and the Conservatives have swung so far to the right, and have limited themselves to an obstructionist agenda that he felt he could no longer defend their actions in his bi-weekly point / counterpoint essay with Robert Riesh (sp?) on NPR's Market Place, so he stepped down. And a lot of the more recent interviews and appearances I've seen, he's been very critical of the lack of choice in the GOP race.


----------



## Redeye (24 Jan 2012)

President Obama is setting the stage for quite a contest this year. He's highlighting obstructionism and corruption brilliantly. Whoever crafted this message and this speech is a genius, because while he's not actually pointing partisan fingers, anyone watching will get the subtext right away.


----------



## MJP (24 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> President Obama is setting the stage for quite a contest this year. He's highlighting obstructionism and corruption brilliantly. Whoever crafted this message and this speech is a genius, because while he's not actually pointing partisan figures, anyone watching will get the subtext right away.



He sure speaks pretty that is for sure...to bad there isn't much substance behind the words.  The GOP is doing itself no favours, with a stellar cast of the usual dry offerings that might have won against another democrat but IMHO not against Obama.  The Dems have gotten good at crafting their message, while the GOP has seem to fractured into camps with various competing messages.


----------



## Redeye (24 Jan 2012)

That's a fair comment. SOTU speeches, however, generally are crafted that way. They're not meant to be campaign speeches. They're supposed to walk a balance of sorts.

I agree about the GOP - except, they're doing worse than that - they've basically offered a slate (on the POTUS race, at least) of offerings that are unpalatable to most people. And frankly, the debates are just making them look even worse. They're playing right into the Dem's hand in an election that was probably theirs to lose.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> He sure speaks pretty that is for sure...to bad there isn't much substance behind the words.  The GOP is doing itself no favours, with a stellar cast of the usual dry offerings that might have won against another democrat but IMHO not against Obama.  The Dems have gotten good at crafting their message, while the GOP has seem to fractured into camps with various competing messages.


----------



## GAP (24 Jan 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> He sure speaks pretty that is for sure...to bad there isn't much substance behind the words.  The GOP is doing itself no favours, with a stellar cast of the usual dry offerings that might have won against another democrat but IMHO not against Obama.  The Dems have gotten good at crafting their message, while the GOP has seem to fractured into camps with various competing messages.



That pretty much sums it up......we (Canada) should bake and sent a congratulation cake to Obama.....like about next month.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jan 2012)

President Obama's legacy will be the first black President,most radical as far as agenda is concerned.He has packed his administration with radical environmentalists and anti-business activists. Twenty years ago I would have laughed off seeing a Manchurian candidate getting elected,now its reality.First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.


----------



## Jed (25 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.



I agree with you on this point. I think that many folks will take the ' I'm from Missouri, show me ' approach. President Obama's administration has had plenty of time to do their thing. The media and the elitist 1% celebs won't be able to hold back the adverse sentiment.


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President Obama's legacy will be the first black President,most radical as far as agenda is concerned.He has packed his administration with radical environmentalists and anti-business activists. Twenty years ago I would have laughed off seeing a Manchurian candidate getting elected,now its reality.First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.



Wow. You sound like you watch a lot of Glenn Beck type stuff. That's a load of crap. Nothing about his agenda was particularly radical, nor even particularly new. Healthcare reform? Not a new idea, hell, even Republicans endorsed the idea of an individual mandate, and it's been around as a concept about as long as America has. Anti-business? Hardly. He's against business running the country, because that's what the Constitution says. The very concept of the US Republic is government by of and for the people, not by of and for its business sector.

Nothing really of his core platform was a surprise or was hidden by the media. He set out what he wanted to do and set upon doing what he could to the extent possible (which wasn't a great extent, given the nature of the legislative arm of the United States Government at the moment.

He's set up a message to his core supporters and to independents that is fairly clear - here's what I came to do, here's what I did, here's what I want to do, and here's why I can't. That's pretty clear, and I think it'll likely resonate.

I guess you're proving that propaganda works. If he was really some kind of "radical leftist", then I'd wager that actual "radical leftists" would be a little more supportive of him rather than whining about how he won't do what they want.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2012)

State of the Union or campaign speech? Boston Herald editorial:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1398504



> *Prez fans the flames*
> By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - Updated 9 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2012)

A useful survey of the coming election campaign, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisons of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/01/24/terence-corcoran-the-united-states-of-envy/


> Terence Corcoran: The United States of Envy
> 
> Terence Corcoran
> 
> ...




The inconvenient fact for President Obama is that the US tax code which Governor Romney and Warren Buffett use to their advantage, has been crafted by successive Democratic and Republican governments because almost every reputable economist, on the left and right of the spectrum, agrees that investments create jobs while government spending, broadly and beyond certain core responsibilities, creates dependencies.

Mr. Romney can - maybe will - press for tax code reform, to close some of the loopholes, he can back Obama into a corner with that because the President, like other elected officials, is a virtual hostage to a vast array of special interests who want the tax cose left alone. Promise to reform the tax code in any meaningful way and a lot of that _super-PAC_ money, upon which Obama depends more than does Romney, will dry up.

Waging a class war does make Obama a quintessentially European style _social democratic_ politician and, equally, makes him "out of step" with mainstream, middle-America.


----------



## TheHead (25 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President Obama's legacy will be the first black President,most radical as far as agenda is concerned.He has packed his administration with radical environmentalists and anti-business activists. Twenty years ago I would have laughed off seeing a Manchurian candidate getting elected,now its reality.First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.




Really?   What parts of his Agenda were radical?  Who in his admistration is a radical enviromentalist and anti-business?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jan 2012)

I wonder if anyone will see the irony in Obama being worth $10.5 million but decrying the rich and implying that they are the problem... Or the fact he won a Nobel Peace prize for not doing anything, but then went on to start bombing Libya, putting more troops into Afghanistan, not closing Gitmo, and killing Bin Laden by violating a nations sovereignty... nah, that's right wing propaganda!


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone will see the irony in Obama being worth $10.5 million but decrying the rich and implying that they are the problem... Or the fact he won a Nobel Peace prize for not doing anything, but then went on to start bombing Libya, putting more troops into Afghanistan, not closing Gitmo, and killing Bin Laden by violating a nations sovereignty... nah, that's right wing propaganda!



Nothing to see or report on here, just move on folks...

I suspect there will be two campaigns; the Legacy media campaign and a new and much larger one waged over the Internet and through Samizdat (like the "Higher prices brought to you by Obama" sticker campaign apparently being waged in grocery stores and gas stations). We will see the Legacy media one with all the bells and whistles that mainstream party money can buy, but since the independent voters are the real key to this election, the underground campaigns will be going overtime to influence them.


----------



## cupper (25 Jan 2012)

If you want to talk irony, one talking head I was watching the other day pointed out that the big GOP, Tea Party, Conservative talking point is that Obama wants to turn the US into a European style Socialist economy, by spending and taxing.

However, if you look at the trend in Europe over this past year or so, they are moving faster than economically possible towards austerity. Sever cuts in spending, reducing government, and eliminating social programs. Exactly the same things that the Tea Party, The GOP and the Conservatives are trying to push through.

Isn't it Ironic? Don't ya think?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jan 2012)

Yeah, complete and utter bankruptcy... economic and as a nation (Yes, we're talking about you Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland) will do that.  You might note that these austerity moves have been mild at best, and that they have brought the spoiled and entitled masses to the streets to protest their not being able to retire at 55 anymore.  

As Mr. Campbell said earlier, when did the American dream become envy?


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

I've never seen President Obama decrying the rich. I've seen him decrying a system where their secretaries pay a higher rate of tax. He's highlighted, and many Americans I suspect agree that that isn't right.

I suspect that a Republican President would have likely intervened in Libya as well, and would also highlight that the USA made a point of not taking the lead, nor seeking to do anything than support the strongly popular but totally outgunned rebel movement with the UN sanctioned aim of ending violence and protecting the civilian population.

I have no doubt that a Republican President would have given the very same orders to kill Osama bin Laden, even if it does generate some discussion about the extrajudicial killing. Except no one really had a problem with that - it's the Yemeni-American cleric, al-Alwaki, that is the more problematic case - but it's in large part "the left" decrying that.

President Obama followed the advice of his military leaders by putting more soldiers in Afghanistan. I would imagine that McCain would have done the same. Of course, if the GOP hadn't started the ridiculous, useless Iraq War and turned Afghanistan into a neglected sideshow, that might not have been necessary in the first place.

As for the Nobel Prize, well, that was pretty ridiculous. But hey, he didn't award it to himself.

So, just curious, other than some hyperbole, was there a point here?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone will see the irony in Obama being worth $10.5 million but decrying the rich and implying that they are the problem... Or the fact he won a Nobel Peace prize for not doing anything, but then went on to start bombing Libya, putting more troops into Afghanistan, not closing Gitmo, and killing Bin Laden by violating a nations sovereignty... nah, that's right wing propaganda!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So, just curious, other than some hyperbole, was there a point here?



There was no obvious or intended exaggeration (the meaning of hyperbole).... The point was that Obama is arguing for economic equality while earning several times more than any average American.  

As for your discussion on the Republicans, what exactly is *your* point... one can speculate all one wants about such thing... hey, maybe if McCain had won the election they'd have found the cure for cancer or invaded Iran and there wouldn't have been an attack.  That's hyperbole, obviously, but your final statement is asinine, and your insistence on bringing Republicans into the discussion demonstrates your own political blindness.  

The secretary paid less tax due to investment taxation laws, which were explained in Mr Campbell's post, and Obama has always played himself off as the man fighting the big man for the little man, talking of taxing the rich more, etc.  

As for Hyperbole, you may want to look at the quote below, from yourself, for a perfect example of it 

"President Obama is setting the stage for quite a contest this year. He's highlighting obstructionism and corruption brilliantly. Whoever crafted this message and this speech is a genius, because while he's not actually pointing partisan fingers, anyone watching will get the subtext right away".


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There was no obvious or intended exaggeration (the meaning of hyperbole).... The point was that Obama is arguing for economic equality while earning several times more than any average American.



So what? Plenty of rich people are involved in causes that don't directly impact them. Plenty of people, regardless of wealth, take interest in and get involved in causes that don't directly impact them. There's no requirement that he "not be rich" to take an interest in ameliorating the plight of those less well off.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for your discussion on the Republicans, what exactly is *your* point... one can speculate all one wants about such thing... hey, maybe if McCain had won the election they'd have found the cure for cancer or invaded Iran and there wouldn't have been an attack.  That's hyperbole, obviously, but your final statement is asinine, and your insistence on bringing Republicans into the discussion demonstrates your own political blindness.



My point is that your initial statements suggest that in some way things would be different were President Obama were not President - that would be if the GOP candidate had one. And that's ridiculous.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The secretary paid less tax due to investment taxation laws, which were explained in Mr Campbell's post, and Obama has always played himself off as the man fighting the big man for the little man, talking of taxing the rich more, etc.



Laws which have some merit, as well, but of which the average American probably wasn't aware, and particularly in the context of the current fiscal position of the United States might find in some way obscene or perverse. I don't know if you realize this, but most voters are "the little man", and politically, that's what a candidate does. The real test, of course, is whether they support policies that do so.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for Hyperbole, you may want to look at the quote below, from yourself, for a perfect example of it
> 
> "President Obama is setting the stage for quite a contest this year. He's highlighting obstructionism and corruption brilliantly. Whoever crafted this message and this speech is a genius, because while he's not actually pointing partisan fingers, anyone watching will get the subtext right away".



Okay then.


----------



## MJP (25 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I've never seen President Obama decrying the rich. I've seen him decrying a system where their secretaries pay a higher rate of tax. He's highlighted, and many Americans I suspect agree that that isn't right.



The argument that you are throwing out here is a bit disingenuous.  Warren Buffet et al don't pay a high tax rate as they don't usually pay themselves a large salary but rather make money off of investments and stock options.  Those are taxed as capital gains which are taxed at a fairly low rate(set to rise in 2013/14).  Despite this the "rich" or the the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of all income tax. The bottom 50 percent pay just 3-5% percent of the taxes.  I thought we had gone over that already in this thread?

The American tax system is a boondoggle of epic proportions that one can't blame on Obama as no administration has had the balls to reform the system.  It has many loopholes that all wage categories can use to pay less overall tax.  The well off are just able to take advantage of that by being able to afford professionals to do their taxes.

I would argue rather than "soaking the rich" that they get some balls and simplify their tax system to eliminate tax loopholes.  They are already set to raise capital gains in the coming years so there is no need to raise it higher(unless of course you want to discourage investment).


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

I'm not really a fan of estate taxes, but it's interesting to see how they're argued over in the USA - it seems in a lot of comments that the average "John Q. Public" thinks that somehow estate taxes impact them, while they generally have no impact except on estates of considerable value. You'd think that of all taxes, assessed in terms of economic impact, it would be the most benign. Like any taxes, though, tax rates/incidence have to be balanced against potential for avoidance. Mitt Romney's efforts to avoid taxes are of course becoming an issue in his campaign efforts.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> The argument that you are throwing out here is a bit disingenuous.  Warren Buffet et al don't pay a high tax rate as they don't usually pay themselves a large salary but rather make money off of investments and stock options.  Those are taxed as capital gains which are taxed at a fairly low rate(set to rise in 2013/14).  Despite this the "rich" or the the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of all income tax. The bottom 50 percent pay just 3-5% percent of the taxes.  I thought we had gone over that already in this thread?
> 
> The American tax system is a boondoggle of epic proportions that one can't blame on Obama as no administration has had the balls to reform the system.  It has many loopholes that all wage categories can use to pay less overall tax.  The well off are just able to take advantage of that by being able to afford professionals to do their taxes.
> 
> I would argue rather than "soaking the rich" that they get some balls and simplify their tax system to eliminate tax loopholes.  They are already set to raise capital gains in the coming years so there is no need to raise it higher(unless of course you want to discourage investment).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jan 2012)

I agree that the tax system in the US is broke... as per the link (by CBS news so it can't be brushed off as Fox propaganda) 43% of Americans pay absolutely no income tax.  That's nil, nadda, zero, zilch, nothing.... 13% or 14% of $20,000,000 a year is $2.8 million... or $2.8 million more than all those 43% put together.  I tend to agree with the author of this article in that excluding a large number of income tax payers from the process it creates a system in which the "little man" simply expects things without paying for them, than ask the persons paying tax to just pay more since they can afford it.  

I understand that those 43% still pay taxes in them form of goods and services taxes, though if it's like in Canada there's likely a GST refund sort of program.  Or they live in one of the many states in which sales tax is 0%.  

I also agree that if Obama is rich or not is not particularly relevant to his ability to help the poorer folks... it's just ironic that the media goes through Romney's records but not Obama's... having been an accountant, I would be willing to be that Obama also looked for loopholes in the tax codes... as we all do.  If you scrutinize and judge one, scrutinize and judge all... that's my point.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jan 2012)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2012)

Assuming Warren Buffett makes most of his investment income from corporations that have profits measured in the millions, those profits are taxed somewhere around 35% before Buffett pays his 15% on what is left after it flows through.  I doubt his secretary's federal tax rate is that high.

Victor Davis Hanson publishes an article or two a week pointing out the absurdities, contradictions, and outright lies of the Obama administration - I can't be bothered to link or repeat them or say/write identical things any more.  No amount of Obama apologia can obscure the disconnect between what Obama promises/claims and what he has done, or his tiresome hectoring/lecturing/blame-mongering.  Not much of Obama's economic agenda is really an agenda of the US political centre.  I mean, really - the man stands up and prominently claims credit for oil production which has happened _despite_ his policies rather than _because_ of his policies and people are supposed to pretend he is an honest and well-intentioned intelligent statesman.  No way, no how, never.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2012)

The Cato Institute has an interesting response to the SOTU address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdwr-xNJIU&feature=player_embedded

and some further follow up (includes embedded links):

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-cato-institute-responds-to-president-obamas-state-of-the-union-address/#comment-21869



> *The Cato Institute Responds to President Obama’s State-of-the-Union Address*
> January 25, 2012 by Dan Mitchell
> 
> I’ve already bragged that the Cato Institute is America’s best think tank, highlighting the fact that we took the lead in battling against Obama’s faux stimulus at a time when many were dispirited and reluctant to fight big government.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jan 2012)

He's the only President that has been endorsed by the Communist Party USA. No I dont listen to Glen Beck. President Obama recently planned to give the Russians the USN's SM-3 missile data.He is about to gut the defense budget to pay for more social spending.His energy policy is anti-coal,anti-gasoline,anti-nuke and his environmentalist supporters dont think he has gone far enough.He decides to kill Keystone but who benefits ? Warren Buffet's Norfolk Southern railroad.I will be the first to volunteer to help the man pack and put him on a plane to Hawaii.

http://www.examiner.com/obama-administration-in-los-angeles/the-communist-party-usa-has-endorsed-their-friend-barack-obama-for-2012


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He's the only President that has been endorsed by the Communist Party USA.



And Ron Paul was endorsed by Stormfront. So what?



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> No I dont listen to Glen Beck.



Rush? Mark Levin? Someone similar?



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President Obama recently planned to give the Russians the USN's SM-3 missile data.



A missile that the quick scan of sources says doesn't even work? Okay then. I can't find a source article (Heritage and other sources cite among other places the Washington Times, which is slightly more credible than the National Enquirer), and thus I can't see the actual context to comment on this much.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He is about to gut the defense budget to pay for more social spending.



He's cutting the defense budget like most budgets. Since it's something like a quarter of the federal government's spending, it has to be cut. And you'd be hard-pressed to find many serious arguments that there isn't room for lots of fat trimming there.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> His energy policy is anti-coal,anti-gasoline,anti-nuke and his environmentalist supporters dont think he has gone far enough.He decides to kill Keystone but who benefits ? Warren Buffet's Norfolk Southern railroad.I will be the first to volunteer to help the man pack and put him on a plane to Hawaii.



You know, if you're going to make these sorts of claims, maybe I can offer you a suggestion that you know what you're talking about. For one thing, the railway in question is Burlington Northern Santa Fe, not Norfolk Southern. As cupper opined, and I think he's correct, KXL was killed for now because of the way the GOP tried to force it through. It's going to happen down the road. And yeah, it'll probably be well-timed for his re-election campaign. At least you're not trotting out birther nonsense, I was waiting for that.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.examiner.com/obama-administration-in-los-angeles/the-communist-party-usa-has-endorsed-their-friend-barack-obama-for-2012



As I said, lots of organizations endorse lots of people. And sometimes those endorsements aren't groups one wants to be associated with, but they have that whole "First Amendment" thing going for them.


----------



## Redeye (25 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President Obama recently planned to give the Russians the USN's SM-3 missile data.



Okay, so I found a mirror of the Washington Times article here: http://americanreport09.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/obama-plan-to-give-sensitive-data-to-russia-on-the-sm-3-anti-missile-interceptor/

So, let's have a read, a critical read, shall we? Go read the article itself, so I don't have to quote the whole thing and can focus on the important stuff - but do read it all, so I'm not looking like I'm quotemining.

What did the guy questioned by the Senate say about plans to give any info on the SM-3? Well, according to the article, this:



> "Mr. McFaul then sought to play down security concerns by stating that Russia probably learned details of the SM-3 speed from technical intelligence from monitoring tests.
> 
> He said the administration does not intend to give the Russians telemetry data – signals sent to ground stations during test flights – about missile-defense interceptors or target vehicles."



Shall I translate? The most detailed and sensitive telemetry data won't be shared. And, no shock to me, the Russians monitor the testing pretty closely to get their own data. Okay. Well, are there efforts ongoing to make exceptions to share more information? Let's see what the Times says:



> "Mr. McFaul said a special security committee that can waive rules against providing classified U.S. data to foreign governments has not been asked to make an exception for SM-3 velocity burnout data."



So, no, there are in fact no proceedings in place to change standards on shared info.

Well, wait... they're going to let Russians watch the tests! See here:



> "However, he said the National Disclosure Policy Committee (NDPC) has approved an exception for Russia to watch an SM-3 missile-defense flight test. Earlier, it approved waivers for Russian viewing of flight tests for a ground-based interceptor (GBI) and Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile in 2007 and 2010. Viewing flight tests normally is restricted to prevent foreign intelligence services from learning classified capabilities from U.S. weapons."



So this is nothing new. That last statement is a little yellow journalism. Yeah, viewing are "normally" restricted, but we've shown the Russians this stuff before. Including, notably, under a previous administration.

Carrying on:



> "Mr. McFaul further explained in written responses to Mr. Kirk that a decision to provide velocity burnout data would not violate assurances provided to the Senate last year that no U.S. missile telemetry data would be given to Russia under the New START arms treaty. Telemetry data, he said, originates onboard a missile and is encrypted.
> 
> “Velocity burn out (VBO) is a performance specification that is readily observed and confirmed by land-based, sea-based, and/or space-based sensors,” Mr. McFaul said."



So, a reiteration about what won't be shared, and a statement that the "sensitive stuff" the Russians could pretty easily monitor anyhow.

More to the point though, why's this an issue? Well, if you remember, the Russians are a little pissed about a ballistic missile defense system being constructed in their backyard that basically ruins their nuclear deterrent. Since the whole ABM program started the US has been trying to convince the Russians that in fact it's to contain rogue states, not so much to deal with Russia. And frankly, given the size of the Russian arsenal, and the proposed ABM shield, it simply wouldn't work for that - but the Russians aren't having it. So before Obama was even around, data has been selectively shared to help the Russians get more comfortable with the idea. It's a diplomatic technique called "confidence building". New START cuts are the same sort of thing. They shrank their nuclear arsenals, sure. By amounts that in the end make literally no difference to their ability to utterly obliterate each other. But doing so shows a willingness to continue diplomacy.

So, enough hysterics. It's basically nothing.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jan 2012)

> Assuming Warren Buffett makes most of his investment income from corporations that have profits measured in the millions, those profits are taxed somewhere around 35% before Buffett pays his 15% on what is left after it flows through.  I doubt his secretary's federal tax rate is that high.



Interesting

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/


----------



## ballz (26 Jan 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Assuming Warren Buffett makes most of his investment income from corporations that have profits measured in the millions, those profits are taxed somewhere around 35% before Buffett pays his 15% on what is left after it flows through.  I doubt his secretary's federal tax rate is that high.



I want to stay out of this whole thread but those assumptions don't hold. What you are saying would only be true if all of Warren Buffett's income was from being paid dividends (because they are paid out of after-tax profits). Dividends are probably a small fraction of his income.

But no matter, because I think using Warren Buffett in any of these arguments, one way or another, is the wrong idea. He's an outlier in all circumstances, plus he gives more to charity in 3 months than I will make in my entire lifetime. Between taxes and charity, he distributes at least between 30-40% of his wealth.

EDIT: Oops, he distributed almost 48% of his wealth last year. He made 62.9 million, gave somewhere around 23.1 million to charity, and paid 6.9 million in taxes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

But it does say he makes a lot of money off of dividends. I would have thought it was primarily capital gains.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And Ron Paul was endorsed by Stormfront. So what?



I think the so what is that the communists feel that Obama has enough in common with their views to endorse him.  Which says a lot.  Like the CAW constantly endorsing the NDP, it's because he best meets their interests.  Ipso facto, Obama must at least share SOME values with the group.

Further, this constant insistence of yours to negatively quote Fox news pers for being at the root of any views you disagree with is silly.  If you want to be the talking head apologist for Obama than go for it... but that doesn't mean other views are wrong or worth being mocked.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2012)

An interesting angle. The SOTU address made little mention of foreign policy, and what it did mention was (to put it mildly) wrong. Foreign policy isn't one of the major issues animating the electorate, but the fact the GOP response was so firmly and single mindedly on the economy suggests they are ignoring a potential wedge issue:

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/25/obamas-sotu-speech-my-response/?print=1



> *Obama’s State of the Union Speech: My Response Discovers Some Curious Insights and Strange Formulations*
> Posted By Barry Rubin On January 25, 2012 @ 12:44 pm In Uncategorized | 46 Comments
> 
> In his State of the Union message, President Barack Obama began by wrapping himself in the flag, patriotism, and love of the armed forces while trying to highlight his foreign policy achievements. Among his points:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2012)

What the GOP _really_ needs in a candidate  ;D


----------



## Redeye (26 Jan 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think the so what is that the communists feel that Obama has enough in common with their views to endorse him.  Which says a lot.  Like the CAW constantly endorsing the NDP, it's because he best meets their interests.  Ipso facto, Obama must at least share SOME values with the group.



Perhaps. A desire for a little more equality, a little less income disparity? Things like that are pretty innocuous. How many members does the Communist Party USA have anyhow? About the same number as the "New Black Panthers"? I've got no real interest in them as suck.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Further, this constant insistence of yours to negatively quote Fox news pers for being at the root of any views you disagree with is silly.  If you want to be the talking head apologist for Obama than go for it... but that doesn't mean other views are wrong or worth being mocked.



I disparage people who add noise to the debate. I've not really had to, but Michael Moore does it too. So does Glenn Greenwald. However, the "left" doesn't have an equivalent to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, though Beck's basically gone the way of Alex Jones and seems to be increasingly regarded as a self-serving lunatic. For me, it's noteworthy that there's no massive media left wing propagandists who lie or spin incessantly in any major media outlet. That's just the way it is. There's a difference between views I or anyone disagree with that are presented reasonably, and what amounts to just agitprop BS. The former I can handle as being productive to civil discourse, the latter are useless.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2012)

At the risk of getting back on topic ...

It seems to me that President Obama faces two challenges:

1. The economy - exemplified by the unemployment numbers. I think April, May and June will be the key months, because I think Americans will be, relatively less concerned with economics and politics in the high summer months; if the economy is improving in April, May and June and if unemployment is falling - measurably, then President Obama will be able to run a "good news" campaign in the fall and he might be hard to beat. But if the economy and unemployment are worse in the spring than now then I think Obama will be fairly easy to defeat, if the GOP doesn't defeat itself in the primaries; and

2. Washington - Obama is now the "face" of Washington, more than John Boehner and harry Reid combined. Washington *is dysfunctional*, more so than the "founding fathers" intended (and they did intend to have an inefficient government) and Obama will be obliged to take a full, unfairly large share of the blame for that. Many Americans blame "Washington" for whatever they perceive to be wrong, to the extent that Obama = Washington then he will pay the price.

If Romney or an as yet unknown "outsider" (drafted in a brokered convention) is the GOP nominee then I think Obama is vulnerable, even if the economy is not too bad. If Gingrich is the nominee then I think Obama is going to be re-elected even if the US slips back into a recession. I think the Democrats will, literally, wipe the floor with Gingrich - Obama in a landslide.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of getting back on topic ...
> 
> ... If Gingrich is the nominee then I think Obama is going to be re-elected even if the US slips back into a recession. I think the Democrats will, literally, wipe the floor with Gingrich - Obama in a landslide.




And here is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that explains why Gingrich is a loser:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/gingrichs-brand-of-conservatism-comes-under-attack/article2317272/


> Gingrich’s brand of conservatism comes under attack
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> 
> ...




I doubt Gingrich can sustain any reasonable level of support until (and certainly not beyond) Super Tuesday.

So who is the rick ribbed conservative alternative to Romney? Santorum? Yes, certainly, but, again: Obama wins in a landslide, in my opinion. Ron Paul? I would actually love to see Ron Paul as President of the United States. He would shake things up - but the Congress, no matter which party controlled it, would reject almost all of his proposals, especially the sensible, useful ones. Dr. Paul, at 76, is 8 years ahead of his time - in the 2020 election, if the US gets two more terms of _namby pamby_ government (Romney) or worse (Obama) then Ron Paul's prescriptions will be universally accepted.


----------



## Haletown (27 Jan 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President Obama's legacy will be the first black President,most radical as far as agenda is concerned.He has packed his administration with radical environmentalists and anti-business activists. Twenty years ago I would have laughed off seeing a Manchurian candidate getting elected,now its reality.First time around the media hid the real Obama from the voter,this time around he has a record that will be very hard to put lipstick on.



Bingo.

100% correct assessment.  The list of his appointments reads like the sign in sheet for the New Party, DSA and every eco greenie nutter organization in America.

Hope & Change  . . . is now Dope & Rage.


----------



## TheHead (27 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> 100% correct assessment.  The list of his appointments reads like the sign in sheet for the New Party, DSA and every eco greenie nutter organization in America.
> 
> Hope & Change  . . . is now Dope & Rage.



Since Tomahawk failed to answer my question. What environmentalists and anti-business activists did he pack his administration with?

*Edited to fix spelling fail.


----------



## Haletown (27 Jan 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Since Tomahawk failed to answer my question. What environmentalists and anti-business activists did he pack his administration with?
> 
> *Edited to fix spelling fail.



Let me do your homework for you  . . .  look up Vna Jones, then thses fools.

Obama appointments-DSA connected

The Obama administration has appointed several people with Democratic Socialists of America connections to key government positions.

    Ron Bloom Manufacturing Czar.

    David Bonior Member of the Obama Economic Transition Team-now delegated by president Obama to negotiate the unification of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations.

    Rosa Brooks Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.

    Carol Browner Energy Czar/Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

    Heather Higginbottom Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, formerly with the Obama for America campaign

    Samantha Power National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.

    Hilda Solis Secretary of Labor. 

All of them are DSA types and the DSA is the front organization for American Marxism.

http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_DSA


Just scraping  the surface . . .


----------



## TheHead (27 Jan 2012)

Thank you for the reply.  I'm going to take a look into this.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jan 2012)

I'll be honest. I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Van Jones. Then, I went an invested in ALCOA, because it looks like tinfoil sales are still brisk. His current interests, including trying to orient the US economy to create new competitive advantages, strikes me as inherently sensible. With very little media support he managed to publish and promote a book with a lot of ideas. Even if they're not necessarily perfect ideas, at least there are people still thinking of new things instead of dragging on with tired, discredited ones. The smear campaign launched against him shows me that the fringe right is scared of him, and that to me suggests that indeed he might have some ideas worth discussing.

If we're going to discuss the President, can we at least talk about things that aren't silly?

Let's talk rather about Mr. Campbell's point. Gingrich is unlikely to get the nomination, for a whole host of reasons, but frankly I suspect that he'd be the Democrat's preference, because Romney is a much more slick candidate. However, it's not hard to play some dirty pool to thrash Romney into the ground. I'd like to they won't stood to bringing up his religion, but it'll work. There's the tax issue. There's his laughable "self-deportation" comments on immigration. There's the fact that he can't credibly oppose President Obama on healthcare reform.

I'm intrigued by some of Ron Paul's positions. His foreign policy ideas would serve America well, but his economic and social policies need to be fully aired, because they'd likely alienate a lot of the younger voters to whom his other positions appeal. That's why Democrats are working hard to show those traits in full. I suspect they're doing it to put off a future threat from him, or from Rand Paul.

I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term. The real contest will be in the House and Senate. Those races, however, are hard to follow. I'm trying to figure out where the "swing districts" are to get an idea of how they may turn out.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Let me do your homework for you  . . .  look up Vna Jones, then thses fools.
> 
> Obama appointments-DSA connected
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term ...




Be careful that you don't smoke that stuff when the meat heads are around ...

Despite your _preferences_ the current polling shows a slight (2.3%) lead for Obama, and that's way down from the 6 or 7 point lead he had in early and mid 2011 ... there's a long way to go until November 2012, and remember Harold Wilson and weeks equalling long times in politics.

See also my comments about Obama and the economy in April, May and June - problems in Europe could sink him.

I think Romney has an even chance of beating Obama even if the economy improves ... I think the bloom is off that rose; I think Romney has a better than equal chance if the economy stagnates; and I think he is the odds on favourite if the unemployment rate rises again.


Edit: typo


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2012)

Finally, a single graphic which encompasses the administration's economic failure:

http://blog.american.com/2012/01/romneys-economic-case-against-obama-all-in-one-chart/comment-page-1/#comment-83177



> *The economic chart that may doom the Obama presidency*
> By James Pethokoukis
> 
> January 27, 2012, 5:52 am
> ...


----------



## Haletown (27 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'll reiterate my current prediction/position. The Presidential election is a non-issue. Obama's still fairly comfortably assured a second term.



Right . . because all of Obama's economic policies have worked out so well, the American economy is booming, the debt and deficit is under control,  Obamacare is extremely popular, almost no Americans use food stamps anymore, all his vaunted  green investments are working perfectly, the Volt is the most popular car in America,  GITMO is now a Club Med, he's stopped the deportations of Hispanics and his outreach to the Muslim world has been an extraordinary success.

Yup . . .  he's a shoe-in for that second term . . .   'cause he's the most successful and beloved POTUS in modern history.


----------



## larry Strong (27 Jan 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jan 2012)

While we're being sarcastic...............


                                Dear Abby,

                                My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card
                                bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at
                                me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our
                                kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the
                                interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that
                                most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to
                                whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even
                                more. Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics
                                and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next
                                he's with Muslims.. Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before
                                anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's
                                just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

                                Signed,
                                Lost



                                Dear Lost,

                                Stop whining, Michelle. You're getting to live in the White House for free,
                                travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you.
                                You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with
                                the idiot for one more year!

                                Signed,
                                Abby


----------



## cupper (27 Jan 2012)

There has been an interesting undercurrent that has been only minimally reported on, but has really come to the forefront with this past presidential term.

For all of the hand wringing, debate, derision, vitriol that goes on during the presidential races, the Office of President is becoming less and less relevant.

A candidate may have a grandiose agenda, but the reality of the office is one of deminishing expectations due to political necessity. This is what we want, but this is what we can get.

The New Yorker is running an article in the latest edition that follows on this theme. The author had access to many memos generated within the administration which show how there really is a lack of power in the Oval Office. In memos setting out options on Health Care Reform, Regulation of the banking Industry and other items of note over the past three years, it shows that the reality is that the administration continually settled for the politically expedient options, knowing that they would only be able to get what they got, rather than what they really wanted.

But this is not limited to the current administration, historic analysis and commentary indicates that past presidents also learned the hard lesson of how the power of the President is more myth than reality.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2012)

I find that a bit difficult to believe Cupper. 

Obamacare was created during the time when the Democrats had the House and Senate, as well as the Administration, and the process was still a gong show. The President essentially outsourced the process to Speaker Pelosi ("you have to pass the bill to see what is in it") and provided little leadership or guidance. The resulting gong show was crony capitalism and log rolling run amok because the President chose to vote "present". 

The appointment of various "Czars" is a direct wielding of executive power, certainly not envisioned in the Constitution.

The new approach for this election year seems to simply attempt to run things by executive fiat (such as non recess recess appointments), which is certainly a huge extension of the concept of executive privilege or simply a power grab.

Perhaps the _real_ issue for the preceived reduction of Presidential power is twofold:

1. The office of the President was never supposed to be all powerful anyway, the founders wrote the Constitution to deliberately limit the power of any singel branch of government. Expecting more is going against the fundamental division of powers doctrine.

2. The Local Knowledge Problem means that no central office, organization or single person can ever gain or process enough information to totally understand or control large systems. Even an office with vastly expanded powers (such as the Russian Presidency) which has the legal mechanisms to carry out direct rule simply cannot deal with the complex system that is Russia. The United States is perhaps the most complex social, economic and political system ever created, so the idea that the President or even the Federal Government can actually provide detailed governance to every person is simply impossible. Attempting to do so simply creates a series of cascading failures which expend political capital for no real gain.

This election will see huge changes downline as the political and social structure of the United states is changing. the politial elites may be able to hang on for one or two more cycles by exploiting their own client base, but after that...


----------



## Redeye (27 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I find that a bit difficult to believe Cupper.
> 
> Obamacare was created during the time when the Democrats had the House and Senate, as well as the Administration, and the process was still a gong show. The President essentially outsourced the process to Speaker Pelosi ("you have to pass the bill to see what is in it") and provided little leadership or guidance. The resulting gong show was crony capitalism and log rolling run amok because the President chose to vote "present".



Party discipline as we understand it in Canada doesn't exist in the United States. Just to remind people who don't know it, the passing of the actual "Obamacare" Act required a whole host of compromises and horse trading to get some Democrats (the so-called "Blue Dogs") on side. It wasn't a matter of staying "Thou shalt vote...". Not only that, The GOP has used filibusters to require supermajorities to get anything through the Senate, which, I'd venture to guess, isn't what the founders actually intended.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The appointment of various "Czars" is a direct wielding of executive power, certainly not envisioned in the Constitution.



Stop. Seriously, stop. The concept of "Czars" is nothing new in the United States, and previous Republican presidents have appointed them. In greater numbers than President Obama. Despite what right wing blogs would like you to believe, the term "Czar" in this context is NOT new. They wield a very specific amount of executive power - NONE. They are advisors to the executive branch, which any student of American civics will immediately recognize has no power to pass legislation and extremely limited ability to do anything, as per the founders' vision of checks and balances. This is a ridiculous red herring.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The new approach for this election year seems to simply attempt to run things by executive fiat (such as non recess recess appointments), which is certainly a huge extension of the concept of executive privilege or simply a power grab.



Again, nonsense. The Senate sittings being used to attempt to qualify the Senate as not being in recess are sittings of about two minutes. The American public, when they are cognizant of the entire process, will not find any offense in the President getting things that need to be done, done.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps the _real_ issue for the preceived reduction of Presidential power is twofold:
> 
> 1. The office of the President was never supposed to be all powerful anyway, the founders wrote the Constitution to deliberately limit the power of any singel branch of government. Expecting more is going against the fundamental division of powers doctrine.



And it isn't. If it was, President Obama would be able to get on with what he actually believes to be the job of trying to fix what's wrong with the republic.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> 2. The Local Knowledge Problem means that no central office, organization or single person can ever gain or process enough information to totally understand or control large systems. Even an office with vastly expanded powers (such as the Russian Presidency) which has the legal mechanisms to carry out direct rule simply cannot deal with the complex system that is Russia. The United States is perhaps the most complex social, economic and political system ever created, so the idea that the President or even the Federal Government can actually provide detailed governance to every person is simply impossible. Attempting to do so simply creates a series of cascading failures which expend political capital for no real gain.



Everyone who believes this should consider, perhaps, moving to somewhere like Somalia. It shows how well this libertarian idea works. I saw on Twitter today a humourous quote: "Libertarianism works brilliantly... until you run out of bullets." Now, I'll happily say this is a crass generalization, but again, the idea that blaming the federal government for trying to do what the US Constitution specifically charges it to do (including promoting the general welfare etc etc) is rather a non-starter. The local knowledge problem isn't to be disregarded, but neither is it a reason to throw up everyone's hands and give up.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> This election will see huge changes downline as the political and social structure of the United states is changing. the politial elites may be able to hang on for one or two more cycles by exploiting their own client base, but after that...



Maybe. That's all I can say. Maybe.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Right . . because all of Obama's economic policies have worked out so well, the American economy is booming, the debt and deficit is under control,  Obamacare is extremely popular, almost no Americans use food stamps anymore, all his vaunted  green investments are working perfectly, the Volt is the most popular car in America,  GITMO is now a Club Med, he's stopped the deportations of Hispanics and his outreach to the Muslim world has been an extraordinary success.
> 
> Yup . . .  he's a shoe-in for that second term . . .   'cause he's the most successful and beloved POTUS in modern history.



The US economy created more jobs in 2011 than it has since 2005 as I recall. The debt and deficit isn't under control because of a paralyzed legislative arm that is totally unable to do anything at all. Things are bleak, but I have to wonder what sentiments are like, what the average American things about everything. The Volt is another stupid red herring and by the way, GM is back to being the top automaker in the world I read recently, Chrysler paid off its loans in full as I understand, and the auto sector is still providing a significant economic engine in much of the US. As for GITMO's prisons, I get why the President can't just wave a want and order them closed, and the emoprog left will keep whining about it while most of his base accepts it. As for the Muslim world, the idiotic idea of war with Iran just seems like a great way forward, doesn't it?

And as for his being a shoe-in for a second term, again, who's going to beat him? Gingrich? Not a chance. Romney might give him a run for his money, but still probably can't win. I don't think he's worried about finding new accommodations next January. There seems to be little need.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

At least the Obama campaign is easy to understand:


----------



## Haletown (28 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And as for his being a shoe-in for a second term, again, who's going to beat him? Gingrich?



Who?  The people of the United States of America who he is so royally screwing over in his blind pursuit of socialist equality or whatever mumbo-jumbo he reads off his teleprompter.  


I understand it is so hard to do the Hopey Changey thing anymore and all you can do now  is hold on to blind belief  in The One, but in those moments when doubt creeps in, here's some moral support for you. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

The main reason the US economy performed better in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2011 - and the ONLY reason GM is on top of the auto heap again - has nothing, not a damned thing, to do with Obama's policies: it was the fucking earthquake in Japan!

The stark problem facing the US is that the leadership (political, social, business and so on) cannot figure out how to create jobs. Americans no longer know how to produce what the world wants ...   No, that's not true: America produces many _services_ the world wants and it still produces _ideas_ that the world wants but Americans want and need to make _things_ that the whole world wants ... and make those things better than the Germans can and cheaper than the Chinese do.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Americans want and need to make _things_ that the whole world wants ... and make those things better than the Germans can and cheaper than the Chinese do.


Good luck to them, beating the Chinese that is.  I cannot see how they could do it cheaper, Yanks would not/could not work for those kind of wages.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Americans no longer know how to produce what the world wants ...



Did American's ever know how to produce what the World wants?  My sense is that since the 1850s they have relied on foreign investment to supply goods and services to Americans, of which there was an ever increasing supply (immigrants and baby boomers).  They have consistently produced products built to American Standards that are incompatible with goods produced in the rest of the world (nuts and bolts that are neither Imperial nor Metric, power at 60 Hz and not 50 Hz, televisions based on NTSC not PAL......).  America's exceptionalism (isolationism) knew, and knows, no bounds. 

America's problem is that her market is saturated.  Marketers in America are reduced to selling on the margins (upgrading your "ancient" two month old 3G cell phone for a 4G phone) and the marketing effort is costly.  Meanwhile in Africa and Asia there is a whole world of people willing to buy ANY cell phone with no marketing effort.  Consequently it is easy to produce to meet the African and Asian demand, with the suppliers splitting the marketing costs between reduced prices and increased profits.   In the West we are those idiots that buy the latest gadgets at the entry level price point just to prove we can buy the latest gadget and fund the development.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Who?  The people of the United States of America who he is so royally screwing over in his blind pursuit of socialist equality or whatever mumbo-jumbo he reads off his teleprompter.



The ones who still generally approve of him? Despite the inherent problems of polls, they consistently show he's in a fairly comfortable position. And one, according to some of today's reporting, that is getting stronger.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> I understand it is so hard to do the Hopey Changey thing anymore and all you can do now  is hold on to blind belief  in The One, but in those moments when doubt creeps in, here's some moral support for you.



I hold no such blind belief. The guy's no messiah. He was, however, the best choice in 2008, in both my opinion, and in the opinion of the American electorate, and he remains so in 2012. It's that simple.

As to Mr. Campbell's claim about GM. The earthquake doesn't seem to have slowed down the Japanese auto industry's ability to meet demand. And it would not shift consumers to one particular manufacturer either. Unless he or someone else has something to back this claim up, I find no reason to believe it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Jan 2012)

media.toyota.ca/pr/tci/en/toyota-statement-regarding-earthquake-197650.aspx

Here you go- 10 seconds on google.

According to Toyota, they lost 450,000 units of production last year as a result of the March 11 Earthquake.


----------



## GAP (28 Jan 2012)

A True Believer......

I remember, in 1993, that I once believed the hyperbola the media spewed out.....I admitt.....(shudder) I voted Liberal.... whew....there I did it.....


History and a bi*^&h slap upside the head got me straightened out in time for the next election....but now when I look back........it was close.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Did American's ever know how to produce what the World wants?  My sense is that since the 1850s they have relied on foreign investment to supply goods and services to Americans, of which there was an ever increasing supply (immigrants and baby boomers).  They have consistently produced products built to American Standards that are incompatible with goods produced in the rest of the world (nuts and bolts that are neither Imperial nor Metric, power at 60 Hz and not 50 Hz, televisions based on NTSC not PAL......).  America's exceptionalism (isolationism) knew, and knows, no bounds.
> 
> America's problem is that her market is saturated.  Marketers in America are reduced to selling on the margins (upgrading your "ancient" two month old 3G cell phone for a 4G phone) and the marketing effort is costly.  Meanwhile in Africa and Asia there is a whole world of people willing to buy ANY cell phone with no marketing effort.  Consequently it is easy to produce to meet the African and Asian demand, with the suppliers splitting the marketing costs between reduced prices and increased profits.   In the West we are those idiots that buy the latest gadgets at the entry level price point just to prove we can buy the latest gadget and fund the development.




Indeed they did: in the 1700s it was ships - better built than British ships, better even than French ships (which where also better than British ships); in the 1800s it was machines and, for the first time, _better *ideas*_ - about things and about how to make things; in the 1900s it was more, better things, made faster and cheaper than the British or Germans could manage.

The Americans still produce good, indeed great ideas but they can no longer turn them into products that can be made by a large number of low skilled but well paid workers. The service sector and the so called _knowledge economy_  do not produce the jobs that the lower middle and lower classes need.

Make no mistake: there is a _class_, or maybe cultural divide in America and, despite the fact that America still is a land of opportunity, too few people move out of the lower and lower middle classes and those classes remain poorly educated and consequently poorly prepared to fend for themselves because the jobs that were there for them in the 1950s and '60s and even in the '70s and '80s are being done, and done *better*, by people in China and, increasingly, Indonesia and the Philippines - by people who are moving up from the bottom of the heap to the lower and lower middle classes.

There are 20 to 25 million unemployed in America right now; there are, also, five to ten million illegal immigrants doing jobs which Americans *cannot* do because laws and labour contracts mean that only illegal workers can do the work at the available market rate. Those are "good" lower class jobs - but America now has a new, even lower class, the illegals - many of whom are clawing their way up the ladder, past the stagnating lower classes.

The class/colour/culture divide is  not President Obama's fault, nor it is Governor Romney's but neither man has a plan to address it. Nor, I'm sad to say, do I.    But the ONLY way to break the class/colour/culture divide is by restoring "hope" to the young men and women in the lower and lower middle classes - and not the false, bullshit "hope" that Obama peddles, which is designed, sadly, to keep the poor just where and as they are. The "hope" they need is in low skill and, of necessity, low wage jobs and a qualitatively better education system for their kids that cares nothing about "self esteem" and everything about skills and knowledge.


----------



## GAP (28 Jan 2012)

Canada has a similar problem. 

There has been many articles over the years about Industry not creating trade apprenticeships to develop skilled workers. This would develop a skilled class that would reignite the entrepreneurship that is needed to grow the economy.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jan 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> media.toyota.ca/pr/tci/en/toyota-statement-regarding-earthquake-197650.aspx
> 
> Here you go- 10 seconds on google.
> 
> According to Toyota, they lost 450,000 units of production last year as a result of the March 11 Earthquake.



That's not in dispute, doesn't take much to figure out.. It did cause production disruptions. Did that, however, shift consumer purchases? Possibly. But what did consumers do in response? Did they specifically buy more GM products? Or did they substitute Korean, European, or other automobiles? Did they delay their purchases to wait for what they wanted? That's what would be needed to support Mr. Campbell's claim.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's not in dispute, doesn't take much to figure out.. It did cause production disruptions. Did that, however, shift consumer purchases? Possibly. But what did consumers do in response? Did they specifically buy more GM products? Or did they substitute Korean, European, or other automobiles? Did they delay their purchases to wait for what they wanted? That's what would be needed to support Mr. Campbell's claim.




I am happy to note that GM and Ford (Chrysler, too?) are making better cars, cars that more and more people want to buy, and they are selling them at very competitive prices ... that's good; the more people who make good stuff the better. But it has SFA to do with Barack Hussein Obama; even the bailouts were unnecessary and, in the end, a waste of good money. Without the bailouts GM would still be making better cars and selling them at very competitive prices - just under new ownership.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Jan 2012)

Autonews seems to think GM will drop again this year, in the wake of Japanese autmakers getting back to full production:

www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120128/RETAIL01/301289987/1448


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> A True Believer......
> 
> I remember, in 1993, that I once believed the hyperbola the media spewed out.....I admitt.....(shudder) I voted Liberal.... whew....there I did it.....
> 
> ...



Saw this bumper sticker at the gun show.

*"I voted for Obama in 2008 to prove I wasn't a racist;
In 2012, I'll have to vote for someone else to prove I'm not stupid."*


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

Obama isn't to blame for what happened in 2008/09 - except is the broadest possible sense of being one of the many who wanted mortgages made available to people who were unequipped to handle them; but, equally, he doesn't get any credit for 2010/11, either; most of what he did was recycled Bush policy, and such credit as is earned by anyone probably goes to Ben Bernake.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2012)

> Indeed they did: in the 1700s it was ships - better built than British ships, *better even than French ships (which where also better than British ships); *



As many in the Royal Navy freely admitted when they ended up sailing under the White Ensign.  :nod:  (Sorry, couldn't let that one go by).

Fair comment on the shipping ERC but I still take issue on the ability of the US to penetrate markets.  I don't have much sense that they succeeded in selling much in the way of machinery outside of the Western Hemisphere.   I do take your point that they have been extraordinarily successful in selling ideas and concepts (from republicanism to MacDonalds).  I will also agree that in the post WW2 era they have made a useful nickel from the sale of weaponry.  But where is the evidence of American televisions in Europe or cars in Asia?  I don't see it.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Jan 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Autonews seems to think GM will drop again this year, in the wake of Japanese autmakers getting back to full production:
> 
> www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120128/RETAIL01/301289987/1448







> ......In a bid to catch up, Toyota is adding factories in Brazil, China, Thailand and elsewhere, aiming to sell half its cars in emerging markets by 2015, up from around 40 percent now...



http://www.firstpost.com/fwire/gm-back-to-top-slot-in-automakers-in-the-world-189433.html


How many does GM plan on opening........zilch, nada, なし, aucune, ни один. Who do you think will be on top at the end of the year?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As many in the Royal Navy freely admitted when they ended up sailing under the White Ensign.  :nod:  (Sorry, couldn't let that one go by).
> 
> Fair comment on the shipping ERC but I still take issue on the ability of the US to penetrate markets.  I don't have much sense that they succeeded in selling much in the way of machinery outside of the Western Hemisphere.   I do take your point that they have been extraordinarily successful in selling ideas and concepts (from republicanism to MacDonalds).  I will also agree that in the post WW2 era they have made a useful nickel from the sale of weaponry.  But where is the evidence of American televisions in Europe or cars in Asia?  I don't see it.




Actually, GM is doing very well in China with its Buick brand. The problem, for GM, is that so are BMW and Toyota and, increasingly, local, domestic Chinese brands; the problem for America is that those popular Buicks are made in China by Chinese workers.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, GM is doing very well in China with its Buick brand. The problem, for GM, is that so are BMW and Toyota and, increasingly, local, domestic Chinese brands; *the problem for America is that those popular Buicks are made in China by Chinese workers*.



Which, it could be argued, means that the Chinese are selling the IDEA of an American car and that GM has franchised the Buick concept....But I suppose the same could be said of a Honda manufactured in Ontario or a Toyota produced in Tennessee.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Make no mistake: there is a _class_, or maybe cultural divide in America and, despite the fact that America still is a land of opportunity, too few people move out of the lower and lower middle classes and those classes remain poorly educated and consequently poorly prepared to fend for themselves because the jobs that were there for them in the 1950s and '60s and even in the '70s and '80s are being done, and done *better*, by people in China and, increasingly, Indonesia and the Philippines - by people who are moving up from the bottom of the heap to the lower and lower middle classes.
> 
> ...




More on this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/have-we-become-a-caste-society/article2318042/


> Have we become a caste society?
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> ...




The "class divide" is exacerbated when race is considered, as it must be. Some groups are stuck in a trap that involves lack of opportunity, too much dependency, crime, broken families and despair; other groups manage, usually in one generation, to lift themselves our of that same trap and into the middle class. The "class divide" is, I think, at least in part a "culture divide." But race, while involved in some cultures, doesn't explain everything or, even, a lot of things - otherwise we wouldn't have the expression "white trash."


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

A few points about getting opportunity:

I have been posting on a separate thread (The education bubble), but alternative models of education and credentialing are rapidly emerging. Soon, a person of limited means can access all kinds of courses on the Internet and get that education recognized by employers. Naturally, the educational establishment is horrified (and in the United States they provide a solid base of Democrat Party support, from public school teachers unions to elite universities), especially since breaking the education monopoly means the end of the flow of government monies. Even now, there are hostile hearings directed against "for profit" education facilities (which are mostly brick and mortar schools), because their success is already drawing away students and threatening the per student funding models of government funded schools.

The other alternative of apprenticeships was raised by Tim Hudak recently in the Ontario legislature, a proposal that could see up to 200,000 people employed by the end of this governments term. The proposal was rapidly shot down by Premier McGuinty due to the opposition of his trade union supporters. There is a National Post article on this, will try to find a link to it.

So the current "Hope and Change" or Moving Ontario Forward B/S is predicted on providing political payout to the supporters of the ruling class, rather than supporting alternatives to the current system that could break the logjam and provide real opportunities to people. Tim Hudak, whatever his other faults, at least recognizes the problem and has proposed a solution. The American election is probably not going to turn on fundimental changes to the education and training system(s), which is a pity, since the long term solution lies there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "class divide" is exacerbated when race is considered, as it must be. Some groups are stuck in a trap that involves lack of opportunity, too much dependency, crime, broken families and despair; other groups manage, usually in one generation, to lift themselves our of that same trap and into the middle class. The "class divide" is, I think, at least in part a "culture divide." But race, while involved in some cultures, doesn't explain everything or, even, a lot of things - otherwise we wouldn't have the expression "white trash."


Sooner or later, we have to admit that there is a large number of people, of all races and societies, that just don't want to work for a living.

They are self entitled, whether by choice or being brought up that way. As this type of generation passes it's 'values' to next, again and again, it becomes harder to break the cycle.

While many people never have the opportunity, millions of others, in the US & Canada do. They just won't though because we've made it too easy for them to play the victim and then to assuage our guilt, we allow programs, paid with our taxes to support their lifestyle.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a large portion of 'the gap'. Instead of perpetuating it and taking more from those that have it and giving it to those that don't appreciate it, tough love programs need to become entrenched.

Workfare, paid apprenticeship programs to address our lack of skilled trade population, with job placement, etc. Once you graduate it should be made extremely hard to be able to slide back to the welfare system.

People have to be made to give up the sense of entitlement, but we have to replace it with a sense of pride, moral worth and human value.

We have to take care of our old, unhealthy and truly, TRULY disadvantaged. 

It's not the rich, not the employed, and not those that would jump at the chance to climb out of the gutter. They are not the problem.

We don't have to take care of our lazy, self entitled good for nothing dregs of society. They are the ones that are truly creating the gap, them and the politicians with their never ending programs and social engineering agendas.

That's just my take on things though.




_edit for grammar_


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

Recce, they are positive proof that incentives work. Something like 47% of Americans pay no income tax at all, and they like it that way so long as pandering politicians are there to say "You don't have to pay taxes, the eeeeevil rich and corporations will pay them for you" (or simply ignore where the wealth is actually coming from and tell them it's all free). Do you imagine they will vote for someone who tells them its time to get off their ass and work?

The other entitled sector you didn't mention is government workers, who have a great gravy train going. They get above market wages and benefits, and recycle some of the cash back to keep their their patron party in power. Look at the last Ontario election, the latest scare headlines about laying off 60,000 Canadian public sector workers or the shenanigans in Wisconsin. You know they are fighting to the last taxpayer to keep their perques.

I think Prime Minister Harper has figured out how to do changes in such a fashion they don't raise enough hackles or opposition to derail his plans. Future Republican State Houses, Governors, Congressmen, Senators and Presidents may well be coming to learn his approach.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Recce, they are positive proof that incentives work. Something like 47% of Americans pay no income tax at all, and they like it that way so long as pandering politicians are there to say "You don't have to pay taxes, the eeeeevil rich and corporations will pay them for you" (or simply ignore where the wealth is actually coming from and tell them it's all free). Do you imagine they will vote for someone who tells them its time to get off their ass and work?
> 
> The other entitled sector you didn't mention is government workers, who have a great gravy train going. They get above market wages and benefits, and recycle some of the cash back to keep their their patron party in power. Look at the last Ontario election, the latest scare headlines about laying off 60,000 Canadian public sector workers or the shenanigans in Wisconsin. You know they are fighting to the last taxpayer to keep their perques.
> 
> I think Prime Minister Harper has figured out how to do changes in such a fashion they don't raise enough hackles or opposition to derail his plans. Future Republican State Houses, Governors, Congressmen, Senators and Presidents may well be coming to learn his approach.



I am a government worker. Both Federal and Provincial. I have always voted the same way, job be damned. I did not vote for McGuinty. When I do my job, it is to protect the safety of the worker, not to pander to a government agenda. I do the same job as many private sector companies do.

-Except-

I also carry the extra responsibility of a badge. I carry a warrant. I prepare and participate in court cases. I am a target of unscupulous employers and workers that I fine. The only protection I carry is a cell phone. That added responsibility is worth something. Whether you care for government workers or not. I pay Union dues because I have to, not because I want to.

By the way there T, how's that government job of yours? Any Class B lately? Or just 2 1/2 - 3 days a week on course admin? Being Crse WO is definitely strenuous, isn't it, especially at the pay you get


----------



## Redeye (29 Jan 2012)

How large a number? I used to think that way too. I wasn't even so generous as to give it the all races and societies disclaimer with complete seriousness either. But I came to realize that while some people are indeed simply lazy and possessed of a nauseating sense of entitlement, they're a tiny minority. Moreover, all the program reforms, workfare, etc will never get rid of them. Accepting that reality allows me - forces me - to then focus on the remainder - the ones who are down for whatever reason and would leap at a chance no get out of their situation. That is, in fact, the vast majority of those people. They want the dignity that comes with a paycheque, the accomplishment, etc. But instead, too often, they're scapegoated as somehow being leeches, when they're simply using the benefits that in many cases they've paid into in the first place.

How do we accomplish that when we don't want to pay the bill for investing in that human capital? When we want to fund less and less infrastructure, education, and so on? It's that inherent contradiction that is what led me to start labeling myself as a "Recovering Conservative". There has to be a better way. I don't know what it is yet, but I do know that we haven't found it.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Sooner or later, we have to admit that there is a large number of people, of all races and societies, that just don't want to work for a living.
> 
> They are self entitled, whether by choice or being brought up that way. As this type of generation passes it's 'values' to next, again and again, it becomes harder to break the cycle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Jan 2012)

ERC: 





> the many who wanted mortgages made available to people *who were unequipped *to handle them



Probably the best description of why there are so many underwater mortgages I have ever seen.

The description includes the 20s something, newly married couple who want/require/need the same house, now, that they just moved out of, which took their their parents twenty/thirty years to move up to. Yes three/four bedrooms and bathrooms, three car garage is definitely needed for them and their dog. Furniture for that big 2500 sq ft plus house? Well, add it to the mortgage.

Then there is the free chicken in every pot group. Cost of their house: Votes. They leaped at the chance of home ownership, even though they were not, will not ever be equipped to handle the responsibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC:
> Probably the best description of why there are so many underwater mortgages I have ever seen.
> 
> The description includes the 20s something, newly married couple who want/require/need the same house, now, that they just moved out of, which took their their parents twenty/thirty years to move up to. Yes three/four bedrooms and bathrooms, three car garage is definitely needed for them and their dog. Furniture for that big 2500 sq ft plus house? Well, add it to the mortgage.
> ...




I have used these two anecdotes before, but ...

We know two families down in Texas:

1. Five university degrees between them, secure in their jobs - he had tenure at a major university, you don't get more secure than that; two homes; three cars and so on. They took some risks - he quit his job to become Chief _Something_ Officer at a high-tech startup, she made some questionable investments ... then they used their homes as virtual "cash dispensers," refinancing to buy more and more ... then came the crash, then his company folded and the university did not want him back ... then the "variable rate" clauses kicked in ... now they live in a rented apartment, having declared personal bankruptcy and lost both homes and a cottage, and, and and ...

2. A Latino family (I don't know their "legal" status and have not asked) have a nice little bungalow and one old car - husband, wife, three kids ... they have no university degrees but they work three or four jobs, cash mostly ... they bought their house with a sub-prime mortgage ... the crash and the "variable rate" clause hit them, too ... but they still have their house, and their jobs ...

The difference: prudence.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The other entitled sector you didn't mention is government workers, who have a great gravy train going. They get above market wages and benefits, and recycle some of the cash back to keep their their patron party in power. Look at the last Ontario election, the latest scare headlines about laying off 60,000 Canadian public sector workers or the shenanigans in Wisconsin. You know they are fighting to the last taxpayer to keep their perques.



Government workers have above market wages and benefits?  lol  I'm not saying that some don't, but I had to quit my public service job since I was tired of going paycheque to paycheque.  Our Federal Public Service offers job security, not decent wages.  I earn more now in the private sector than anyone in the entire organisation did where I used to work for the government.  
Do they sometimes feel entitled? Yes, i'd say that they do with regard to benefits, time off, etc but that sort of 'entitlement' applies equally to anyone who works within the constraints of a contract.  I hardly consider it unreasonable for a person to expect an employer to follow the guidelines both parties have agreed to. 
These are hard working men and women slogging it out in sometimes thankless jobs and often for a lot less money than they could be earning in the private sector.  Some stay because it's secure work, some out of loyalty, some love the challenges and responsibilities, but in the end these are WORKING Canadians and to describe them as 'entitled' is both false and unwarranted.
There are very little savings to be had cutting away at this group.  They are always an easy target, and the easy cuts have been made already years ago.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech, 
You're just wasting your breath on Thucydides when it comes to Govt. employees. He hates us all, even though, it would appear, he has no problem sucking at that teat and not to mention taking the raises that that the PSAC folks have to sometimes lose wages to get while he has risked nothing.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2012)

While I can't speak for your individual cases, a fairly recent study I posted (and that was reported in the National Post) suggested that if Canadian public sector workers were paid at the same rate as private sector workers doing identical jobs (which factors out categories that include risk premiums like police, firefighters and EMS); the yearly saving in wage and benefit costs would be $19 billion/year.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/18/indifference-ends-on-public-wages/

So we are talking an amount that would cut the Canadian deficit in half.

Lorne Gunter also commented in National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/lorne-gunter-big-cuts-needed-in-ottawas-bloated-public-service/

Key quote:



> Each of the more than 450,000 federal civil servants costs taxpayers an average of $92,000 annually for salaries, benefits and pension contributions, according to James Lahey, a former senior bureaucrat who has done the most comprehensive studies yet into civil service pay and benefits. The cost of a federal civil servant is nearly $20,000 a year more than the cost of an average private-sector worker.



Now you may or may not fall into that category, but public sector workers *as a whole* have a huge incentive to vote for politicians who will keep a gravy train like that running, and will fight bitterly against any politician who proposes to stop it.

And of course the same situation obtains in the United States, as the antics of Wisconsin's public sector unions showed.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;

As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Earth revolves around the sun	79%
Sun revolves around the earth	18
No opinion	3
 	100%

Simply demonstrates that you can't even get a consensus with the obvious.

I worked as a CE Electrician at CFB Edmonton.  EIM10 pay was $24.00 an hour.  4 years later it is $27.00 an hour.  Oilsands work pays over $40 an hour (yes, those guys mostly live here in Edmonton), my company pays $35.00 an hour.  
Benefits?  The benefit package my guys have is also Sunlife, but a much upgraded version over the PS or military ones.
Pensions?  Take that $7-$15 an hour difference and invest it. 
So then why would anyone take or keep that PS job?  You'd have to go visit them in Edmonton and ask, but I can tell you that they are downsizing and contracting out the vast majority of the work to private companies since they do not have the staff to stay on top of things.  
Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?  I certainly do not unless they're married to nurses


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?



I work along side a floor full of them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;
> 
> As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?
> 
> ...



Have fun. No matter how plausible you make your arguement, Thucydides won't budge. This has been the burr under his saddle for many a year. He doesn't care that it hits the majority working stiff that doesn't make that wage. Only that the minority top end are lumped in to skew the stats in favour of his stance.

If you don't listen to Bruce on this matter, it will only end in frustration for you.  



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> exabedtech,
> You're just wasting your breath on Thucydides when it comes to Govt. employees. He hates us all, even though, it would appear, he has no problem sucking at that teat and not to mention taking the raises that that the PSAC folks have to sometimes lose wages to get while he has risked nothing.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jan 2012)

Whether or not Public Servants are overpaid is somewhat moot. The real cost is more a reflection of how many taxpayers it takes to fund each position.

If you presume that each PS employee pays roughly 27% of their wage in taxes, then it takes at least three equivalently paid non-PS tax payers to make up the difference. When you add in the Govt's employment costs, that number then grows to 4 tax payers required to offset the position.

There's the real cost, regardless of the actual dollar amount. When the number of tax payers can't support the number of PS positions, something has to give.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;
> 
> As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?
> 
> ...



That's a pretty poor "demonstration." The study that Thucyclides is referring to is not a poll, it is not a consensus, it is a financial analysis. It's math, and it's fairly black and white.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> I worked as a CE Electrician at CFB Edmonton.  EIM10 pay was $24.00 an hour.  4 years later it is $27.00 an hour.  Oilsands work pays over $40 an hour (yes, those guys mostly live here in Edmonton), my company pays $35.00 an hour.



Having lived in Fort Mac and worked as a tradesman, and still return every year, your assertion that most of those tradesman live in Edmonton are simply not true. More importantly, it's irrelevant. If they are choosing to sacrifice their time with their families, etc, to travel to and from work, and live in camps, then that is a choice they are making for the extra cash. There are people in Newfoundland flying to Fort Mac or to an oil rig in GP for 20 days, then coming back for 10. Is it fair to compare their wages to someone living in Newfoundland? This is no different than the argument about how people used to move to places to find a job, and now they expect a job to come to them.

I also remember when my friends were coming back in the summers between semesters at university, many of them were trying to get jobs working for the city as opposed to working out at Suncor/Syncrude/CNRL etc. The pay was as good, but the pace was... a lot easier.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> You'd have to go visit them in Edmonton and ask, but I can tell you that they are downsizing and contracting out the vast majority of the work to private companies since they do not have the staff to stay on top of things.



Probably has something to do with the fact that it's a lot cheaper, as well...



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?  I certainly do not unless they're married to nurses



Come to any liquor store in Newfoundland and meet the unionized, high school educated person making $20/hr, 25 paid vacation days a year, plus sick days, guaranteed OT, government pension, etc. I don't mean to say "high school educated" with a negative connotation, simply that the rest of the folks in Newfoundland with a high school education cannot get that wage, let alone those benefits, in the private sector.

In Newfoundland, people are always looking to "get on with the government." It would be a lot of people's top choice for employment. There must be something attractive about it.


I don't "hate" government employees. I have lots of friends and family that work for the government in Newfoundland. They are necessary. The government runs just like a business, and it needs employees, some skilled, some trained, and some just for manual, tedious tasks. I do think in Canada we overspend on government employees, and we are only able to do so because of the amount of natural resources we have yet relatively small population. Almost 10% of our population is employed in the public sector. There has to be a cheaper way than that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2012)

Anyone that thinks privatizing public employee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?



_edit for spelling_


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jan 2012)

For me, the reductions would have to be quite specific. For example, here in MB, we have MPI. MPI is the provincial motor vehicle insurer. Its employees are public servants. I have my own objections to the concept of government run insurance, but that's not the point. My bigger objection is that motor vehicle insurance should not be considered a core government function. Do we really need a large number of public employees providing a service that the market has proven it can provide for less? In addition, the union representing these employees quite unabashedly campaigned for the NDP as they guaranteed the security of those jobs, where the Torries were looking to dismantle MPI.


----------



## Redeye (29 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyone that thinks privatizing public empoyee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?



EXACTLY.

Look at all these PPP/PFI scams. Look what happens when privatization happens, in a lot of cases it's disastrous. Great Britain has been a shining example. My father, being an expat, keeps a subscription to Private Eye which usually winds up breaking the stories of how much money gets pissed away on them. The great example is British Rail, which apparently costs the public MORE now that it's in private hands.

To be clear, there's some scope for privatization in many cases, but the benefits tend to be heavily oversold, the costs basically never mentioned.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Contracting out work isn't saving you any money.  The reason has less to do with private contractors and more to do with the procurement methods used by our government.  Specifically the idea that if you bid successfully on a supposed 'cart' of products, you become the only guy they can call for the year under what they call a Standing Offer Agreement (SOA).  Its a system asking to be abused and to think it isn't abused on a daily basis by contractors inflating costs because they know they'll get the job regardless or by PS staff awarding the contracts based on 'favours'.  Do I have proof?  no i don't, but I do remember being offered everything from boats and TVs to evenings with strippers if only I would choose one supplier over the other back in the day when procurement was part of my job.
In the open market, contracts are awarded mostly on an individual basis, not for a year or 2 at a time.  If the government dealt with construction the same way private industry does, there would be saving to be had.  Should be a simple procedural change, but its anything but.  Way too many vested interests in keeping things as they are.
I can recall as a young Sgt 642 looking to CE to see if I could take on some of their work as OJT for my guys.  They handed my a pile of work orders, one of which was meant for an outside contractor.  The contractor, who of course held the SOA, had quoted $945.00 for this particular job.  I sent one guy with $30 in materials and he was done in an hour. Of course the Contracts WO was pissed since that work was meant to be sub-contracted.  I only use this example because it is such simple math, but this same thing gets repeated every day on every base, station, armoury and depot in the country.
If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference.  
I'd bid on some gov't maintenance jobs, except that the last time it came up, I recall that the electrical contractor also had to bid on the painting, carpeting, tilework and everything else.  I can clearly see on MERX that this isn't the case everywhere, but the SOA system is in force everywhere and it really is a 'gravy train' if you can get it.  
I asked one contractor years ago how he managed to underbid everyone and get the SOA for the year... he told me that on the line where they ask your after hours/weekend rate, he put down 'no charge' knowing full well that the base would NEVER call him on it since they have CE staff on call.  He was right.  They never did and he consistently won that SOA year after year.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/18/indifference-ends-on-public-wages/


From the quoted story:
"Torontonians appear prepared to take a long-term strike to reduce civil servant wages (and concomitantly, property taxes)."

Most of what I have heard and read seems to indicate that. 
I was a full-time member of the of the city's outside-workers union aka "the garbagemen's union" from the age of 18 till my 55th birthday. I remember being pulled over by garbage trucks during contract negotiations for not too subtle lectures on "brotherhood". The Local knew the public might tolerate their garbage piling up for a while, but not bodies.  
Interestingly, in those 37 years there was only one strike, and it only lasted 16 days. Although officially on strike, paramedics were ordered to remain on duty by the province.
Loved the job, don't miss the politics.  

The outside workers union has 6,000 members, including 850 paramdedics. Our sister union, the inside workers, has 18,000 members.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyone that thinks privatizing public employee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?
> 
> 
> 
> _edit for spelling_



My answer, is always, is that it depends on the scenario.

I'll use a Newfoundland example again. The city has taken it upon themselves for clear snow... there is a lot of snow here and therefore a lot of demand for snow-clearing. There would be many, many companies trying to compete. It would be cheaper if they contracted it out, for sure. Businesses would have incentives to keep costs low, so that they could bid competitively, and they would have incentives to do a good job, so that they get the job the next year. Instead, the city buys it's own equipment, hires a boatload of employees that are unionised and has to pay them ridiculous wages and benefits to do the job. This requires a boatload more employees for the administration involved, as well as the maintenance of vehicles, etc.

How many examples there are like that at the Federal level, I am not sure. But I refuse to accept a blanket solution that it's_ always_ cheaper or more expensive to do it one certain way.

I agree that companies would try and hose the gov't on contracts. That is a flaw in the delivery that needs to be fixed, by intelligent politicians and bureaucrats that we are paying good money and should expect demand better solutions from.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> Contracting out work isn't saving you any money.  The reason has less to do with private contractors and more to do with the procurement methods used by our government.  Specifically the idea that if you bid successfully on a supposed 'cart' of products, you become the only guy they can call for the year under what they call a Standing Offer Agreement (SOA).  Its a system asking to be abused and to think it isn't abused on a daily basis by contractors inflating costs because they know they'll get the job regardless or by PS staff awarding the contracts based on 'favours'.  Do I have proof?  no i don't, but I do remember being offered everything from boats and TVs to evenings with strippers if only I would choose one supplier over the other back in the day when procurement was part of my job.
> In the open market, contracts are awarded mostly on an individual basis, not for a year or 2 at a time.  If the government dealt with construction the same way private industry does, there would be saving to be had.  Should be a simple procedural change, but its anything but.  Way too many vested interests in keeping things as they are.
> I can recall as a young Sgt 642 looking to CE to see if I could take on some of their work as OJT for my guys.  They handed my a pile of work orders, one of which was meant for an outside contractor.  The contractor, who of course held the SOA, had quoted $945.00 for this particular job.  I sent one guy with $30 in materials and he was done in an hour. Of course the Contracts WO was pissed since that work was meant to be sub-contracted.  I only use this example because it is such simple math, but this same thing gets repeated every day on every base, station, armoury and depot in the country.
> If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference.
> ...



I agree with you, but like I said, that's not a private vs public issue, that's a flaw in the implementation. It needs to be fixed, and I like the way you put this: "If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference."

There needs to be some monitoring, of course, to avoid corruption, conflicts of interest, etc... but at the end of the day, the gov't needs to be run like a real business, where it is their own damn money that is either going to be saved or wasted. I don't have the answers as to how that change could be made, I assume no one does, but those answers do exist and can be found.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2012)

The question isn't really whether the service is public or private.  The question is why government can't buy goods and services as efficiently as any private company.

During fat times, private companies are prone to convincing themselves that they need all sorts of capabilities in house (essentially, a symptom of empire building).  During lean times, they learn to focus on their core strengths and divest themselves of capabilities which are core strengths of others (outside contractors, suppliers, etc).  There isn't really much to debate over the superiority of focusing on core business, since the lesson is hammered home with every trip around the business cycle.

Identify the reasons government finds itself incapable of purchasing efficiently and eliminate them.  Otherwise, accept them and start drawing up the list of programs to keep and programs to terminate.  And there is no need to resort to the "but it does X good" defence of a program.  I will stipulate that every public dollar spent has some utility.  But not every way of spending a public dollar has equal utility, and public dollars are finite.  Stop pretending every program is untouchable.  Start cutting and gutting.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Looks like Obama has found at least ONE program to cut!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/01/obama_s_pentagon_budget_cuts_panetta_s_defense_department_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html

Not sure he and I could agree on much, but cutting their defence budget is long overdue.  Exactly who are they aiming to need that massive military against?  Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans, but they need it the way I need 11 Ferraris.  Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11??  Bad enough that I can't afford one


----------



## Sythen (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Looks like Obama has found at least ONE program to cut!
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/01/obama_s_pentagon_budget_cuts_panetta_s_defense_department_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html
> 
> Not sure he and I could agree on much, but cutting their defence budget is long overdue.  Exactly who are they aiming to need that massive military against?  Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans, but they need it the way I need 11 Ferraris.  Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11????  Bad enough that I can't afford one



And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11??



Trouble with your logic is that if the US needs 3 carriers available at all times, they need to have 6 or more. To have 3 available, you need more because of long-term maintenance and training issues.

The same applies to the SSBN force. If you want one on-station at all times, you need 4 (The one that is out, the one that just came back, the next one to go out and one in long-term refit) plus at least one for training.

The same applies to anything where you need X number available at all times.


So while you don't need 11 Ferraris, you don't have to keep 3 on the road 24/7 either.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Nope, not a foreign policy expert at all!  Just a guy who knows that when you consistently spent more than you make, you're going to be in trouble.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/federal-deficit-on-track-stay-under-1-trillion_n_1202626.html

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government will run a $973 billion deficit for the entire 2012 budget year, which began on Oct. 1. While lower than last year's $1.3 trillion imbalance, it would be higher than any previous deficit before fiscal year 2009"

You know what they say... $1 here, $973 Billion there... before you know it, its real money.  

Having a defence budget of $687B (2010) is fine when either you can afford it, or your existence demands it.  Neither is the case for the US.  Quick search of wikipedia reveals that the US defence budget is actually greater than the next 20 countries budgets combined.  
They need to stick with what is truly required for their military and it'll take smarter men than I to figure out what the hell that is exactly, but one thing is for sure - it needs to cost a lot less.

How many trillion dollar deficits can they run before the debt is so out of control that the interest payments become your single largest government expense?  How long before you need to trim the essentials to keep up those payments??  Do you default? With a debt of $15.2 trillion (as long as you read this in the next 10 minutes or so)  they have no real option other than to find a plan to bring them to balanced budgets at some point.  Cutting the military is a pretty obvious one, but to make real progress, this will need to hurt everyone.  Us included.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans,



Further to my last, you do realize that all 11 are never at sea at the same time, all the time, right ?

11 carriers total will likely leave you with around 4-6 available for ops at any given time.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Further to my last, you do realize that all 11 are never at sea at the same time, all the time, right ?
> 
> 11 carriers total will likely leave you with around 4-6 available for ops at any given time.



Yes, like you, been around the military long enough to know the basics.   :nod:  Just saying that they have tough choices to make.  When the US has 11 operational carriers compared to the rest of the planet having a total of 10 operational carriers, there may be an opportunity to cut given that they are going broke.
If they were not going broke, and had balanced budgets and a strong economy, then why not have 11?  Why not 50 if you can afford them?  My point is simply that they cannot afford them.


----------



## Sythen (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Nope, not a foreign policy expert at all!





> the US defence budget is actually greater than the next 20 countries budgets combined.
> They need to stick with what is truly required for their military and it'll take smarter men than I to figure out what the hell that is exactly, but one thing is for sure - it needs to cost a lot less.



So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?

The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Just saying that they have tough choices to make.



They do and i don't think American's themselves know what they want their place in the world to be so i doubt you do as well. Until they have a much bigger debate, cutting the defence budget will be an exercise in futility or a comedy of errors at best.



> When the US has 11 operational carriers compared to the rest of the planet having a total of 10 operational carriers,



Another argument that sounds good but make little sense. Your argument is little more than comparing apples to baseball bats. Countries have different interests abroad, different geo-political realities and different foreign policy objectives. 



> My point is simply that they cannot afford them.



yeah, we got that.


----------



## exabedtech (29 Jan 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?
> 
> The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.



I have no idea where they should focus their military.  Should they worry about China?  Iran? Russia?  That's really up to them.  My point is simply that they can't afford the military that they have.
Interesting quote from Wikipedia here " the United States constitutes roughly 43 percent of the world's military expenditures."  43% of the entire world!!!  That's great when you can afford it, but history is full of empires who overstretched themselves until they collapsed.  Granted, nothing like the US has ever existed before, but simple principles like spending within your means still apply.
I don't think the US has a single department that can escape the sort of cuts they need to sort themselves out.  A larger problem is that resolving this would take the sort of long range planning that a 4 year election cycle makes virtually impossible.
I'm certainly not against having a strong military.  I served my country for a long time and am proud of it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2012)

Well, they had 11 or 12 CVBGs during the years of the Clinton "surplus", didn't they?  That must mean the problem lies elsewhere - so they should fix that problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.





			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?
> 
> The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.



If you have a problem with his opinion, that he has a right to, rebutt it logically and stop the personal attacks.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Haletown (30 Jan 2012)

It will be  a most entertaining election  . . .  the folks that get to create the advertising/ counter advertising are going to have an abundance of ammunition now that The One has The Record rather than the Blank Slate Hopey Changey Thingy from last go-around.

"Obama's approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan's approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations "has never worked" to spur growth."

http://news.investors.com/Article/599291/201201271850/economy-continues-to-underperform-under-obama.htm


----------



## cupper (30 Jan 2012)

Not that I want to get this off track again, but The Washington Post has a brief article covering a CBO report that indicates that Federal Government (US Gov't) workers do make more than their private sector counter-parts, with the exception of those with professional or graduate degrees.

*CBO: Federal workers make more than their private-sector counterparts*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-federal-workers-make-more-than-their-private-sector-counterparts/2012/01/30/gIQAlxcEdQ_blog.html?hpid=z3

The Congressional Budget Office has found that the federal government pays slightly more in average wages and significantly more in benefits than the private sector. But the advantages mostly accrue to less-educated workers, while compensation for federal employees with professional and doctoral degrees lag significantly behind their private-sector counterparts.

On average, the CBO discovered that the federal government pays about 2 percent more in total wages and about 16 percent more when the employer-provided benefits are factored in, comparing workers with similar occupations and backgrounds. But there was a big range based on education level: Federal workers with no more than a high-school degree earned about 21 percent more than comparable private-sector workers, while those with a professional or doctoral degree earned about 23 percent less on average.

Anecdotal evidence seems to back this up, too: The highest-paid White House advisers made $172,200 last year, as Derek Thompson points out, and it’s reasonable to assume that former Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag makes significantly more at his new job at Citigroup. Though, as Modeled Behavior rightly notes, his compensation may be higher because of his White House experience, revealing the latent benefit of federal employment for higher-educated workers who leave for the private sector.

Similarly, if the value of benefits were factored in, those with a high-school degree at most had 36 percent higher total compensation, while the professional/doctoral set earned about 18 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The biggest factor behind this gap is “the defined-benefit pension plan that is available to most federal employees,” the CBO explains, noting that private employers have been moving away from such benefits.


----------



## Sythen (30 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you have a problem with his opinion, that he has a right to, rebutt it logically and stop the personal attacks.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



He can have his opinion, as I can have mine. No where do I say he can't. Also, no where in my posts do I make any personal attacks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> He can have his opinion, as I can have mine. No where do I say he can't. Also, no where in my posts do I make any personal attacks.





> Quote from: Sythen on Yesterday at 21:26:51
> 
> And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.





> Quote from: Sythen on Yesterday at 21:59:33
> 
> So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?
> The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.



There are the personal attacks. Your sarcastic innuendo. It's not needed.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Haletown (31 Jan 2012)

The Congressional Budget Office has spoken on the 2012 American economic forecast.

"    The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.  CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.  These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO's last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

    A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama's reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing. If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

    CBO had forecast an 8.5 percent unemployment rate for the end of 2012 in its August report. It now expects the jobless rate to be higher, and to still be at 7 percent in 2015. The higher unemployment numbers are due to lower economic growth than previously estimated. Gross domestic product for 2011 is now estimated to have grown 1.6 percent in 2011, down from the 2.3 percent forecast in August. CBO a year ago had predicted 3.1 percent growth for 2011. The outlook for 2012 has also worsened. GDP is forecast to grow only 2 percent this year, compared to a previous estimate of 2.7 percent."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/01/31/white_house_panic_gruesome_2012_economic_forecast_could_doom_obama

The One that promised Hopey Changey as a plan now has a record, the results of his decisions. 

It will be a most interesting election to wacth.


----------



## exabedtech (31 Jan 2012)

This election will be won or lost on the issue of the economy.  Obama may look pretty cosy in his office right now, but as they say, a week is a very long time in politics.
Granted, he didn't exactly take office at the best possible time, but from my experience nobody cares what you inherited, only what you've achieved.  So far, it looks like he's managed to achieve a steady output of $1T+ deficits.  To put that number in perspective, Canada's GDP is approx $1.58T .

A sharp republican would give old Stevie Harper a call and ask about what it takes to keep the message firmly on the economy even though people think you are either dull, evil or both.  The republicans may do well to stop with the pandering to their base which will clearly vote for them regardless, and focus on a simple and easily explained vision for economic growth.
'Little' things like Keystone will bite Obama right in the @ss come November.  Yes, the granola vote may be lost, but come election time, they tend to be more interesting in finding some munchies than actually getting out to vote.

Whichever candidate can find a way to deliver a simple consistent message towards the working man/woman will carry the day.  Not sure i've seen that man yet.


----------



## Redeye (1 Feb 2012)

The pandering to the base is particularly heavy right now because in the primary process that's who's voting and thus who candidates have to reach. Romney (I'm going to go ahead and put my money on him being the candidate) will, once nominated, have to start connecting with those independents and trying to win their votes. I'm not sure he'll be an easy sell though, for a variety of reasons already discussed. It'll be a matter of economic sentiment over the summer, mostly. There are plenty of great remarks from the primary campaign that I'm sure the Democrats are saving for their ads in various markets.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> This election will be won or lost on the issue of the economy.  Obama may look pretty cosy in his office right now, but as they say, a week is a very long time in politics.
> Granted, he didn't exactly take office at the best possible time, but from my experience nobody cares what you inherited, only what you've achieved.  So far, it looks like he's managed to achieve a steady output of $1T+ deficits.  To put that number in perspective, Canada's GDP is approx $1.58T .
> 
> A sharp republican would give old Stevie Harper a call and ask about what it takes to keep the message firmly on the economy even though people think you are either dull, evil or both.  The republicans may do well to stop with the pandering to their base which will clearly vote for them regardless, and focus on a simple and easily explained vision for economic growth.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (1 Feb 2012)

But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.

I'm not calling this one yet.


----------



## Redeye (1 Feb 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.
> 
> I'm not calling this one yet.



To an extent, that may well be true. But it takes away the ability to argue over healthcare reform, since there's so many similarities between their healthcare plans, and the "state vs federal" argument may or may not resonate. The fact that Romney is a Mormon may turn off the evangelical set, but that impact is also a large variable that isn't easy to call. Gingrich would have been easy to attack based on his personal history, Romney not so much. However, the Swiss bank accounts, the perception of him being a massively wealthy man totally out of touch with the average American, and such things may still resonate. It's going to be an interesting campaign for sure.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2012)

William Goldman is well-known Hollywood writer, having penned films as The Princess Bride.  He also wrote a column on movies, where he'd delight in pointing out the many, many mistakes that those in the industry would make in their predictions.  He penned a phrase that applies very well to the two groups talking past each other on this thread.  

"Nobody knows anything."



(Of course, Sturgeon's Law applies equally here)


----------



## cupper (1 Feb 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.
> 
> I'm not calling this one yet.



Not so fast. Heard on the news this morning that Romney's favorability rating has dropped significantly over the past month amongst independents.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2012)

What really counts in elections (as in war) is money. This direct comparison article does not tell the entire story, of course. Much of the PAC money will go to downline races, and there are various non monetary assets in play as well. The Legacy Media will be heavily tilted towards the incumbent, while the TEA Party movement provides millions of "ground troops" to spread the message and provide help in the "GOTV" efforts. Both sides are heavily invested in social media, but I think the rules are still evolving so neither side could claim to know how to utilize it to the maximum effect (in fact no one does as of now).

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/01/obama-money-advantage-disappearing/comment-page-2/#comments



> *Obama money advantage disappearing*
> posted at 10:25 am on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> For a year, Republicans have worried about having to face a billion-dollar Re-Elect Obama machine in the fall.  Most have just assumed that whoever wins the GOP nomination will have to contend with being outfunded and outgunned, even apart from the usual Democratic advantages of the news media and entertainment industry.  National Journal punctures this expectation by looking at the pace of fundraising for Barack Obama’s campaign and the outside groups expected to boost him into orbit:
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2012)

I think the 2012 election is pivotal for America, and in a way I am echoing Newt Gingrich.   :  I believe that four more years of Obama, most likely saddled with an _opposition_ Congress, can set America back nearly five years - to summer 2008 and another, even deeper _Great Recession_ which can turn into a full blown depression.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is an article that explains the problem:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/02/fed-urges-washington-to-get-grip-on-debt/


> U.S. must get grip on debt: Bernanke
> 
> Bloomberg News
> 
> ...




There is nothing to suggest that President Obama has any interest at all in balancing the budget; there is plenty of reason to suspect that he wants to continue to borrow and spend like a drunken sailor - apologoes to the denizens of Navy,ca.  :-*

There is nothing to suggest that there will be major changes in the makeup of the US Congress - the Republicans are almost certain to retain control of the House, they _might_ also get control of the Senate - in which case the GOP could produce a budget which President Obama would likely veto. In the event that we have the same situation as now then:

1. The Senate will not vote a budget for 50 more months;

2. The House will overturn some of Obama's spending plans;

3. There will be a full blown government shut down; and

4. The US will default on some of its debt.

The overall effect will be to shatter the world's faith in America's ability to govern itself and the US will sink into another deep, difficult, socially dangerous recession - this time there will be real riots in the streets: not by children but by unemployed workers and newly homeless people.

In my opinion it is imperative that Americans "suck it up" and elect a Republican _team_ - President and Congress - and get ready for eight to twelve years of austerity and reconstruction. I am not sure the people of the USA have either guts or the brains to do that.

Both Gingrich and Romney are wrong to blame Bernanke for being the messenger; the problem is not the Federal Reserve: it is the people of the USA - the ones who elected Barack Obama and Harry Reid and the _Tea Party_ folks and, and, and ...


----------



## exabedtech (2 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the 2012 election is pivotal for America, and in a way I am echoing Newt Gingrich.   :  I believe that four more years of Obama, most likely saddled with an _opposition_ Congress, can set America back nearly five years - to summer 2008 and another, even deeper _Great Recession_ which can turn into a full blown depression.
> 
> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is an article that explains the problem:
> 
> ...



Agreed.  The problem is the entire concept of spending money you simply do not have.  Unfortunately, I have serious doubts that the US electorate would be able to handle the sort of austerity measures needed to bring back balanced budgets.  Guts they have plenty, brains... not so much.  This problem requires long term vision and as such, is well beyond anything their current government can handle.  

I can't see any default in their future since their debt (luckily for them) is in the same currency that they seemingly print at will, but Canada will suffer greatly over this unless we can get our oil production significantly improved (working on it!) and shipped to markets other than the US where it can be sold at Brent rather than West Texas rates.

As the US finds more and more of its revenue dedicated to debt interest payments, a dip back into recession seems inevitable and of course drags parts of Canada down with it.  Access to offshore oil revenue may be just what we need to soften the inevitable blow in my opinion.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Feb 2012)

I curious as to how much damage Mitt's faux pas and dismissing the poor will cost him.  I'm sure to Newt it must have been manna from heaven to see Mitt (or Twit) stomp on his gear with golf shoes like that.   From the mouths of knaves...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2012)

Of course there will be winers and losers if the current administration is reelected as well:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/02/02/who-stands-the-most-to-win-and-lose-from-a-second-obama-term/print/



> *Who Stands The Most To Win - And Lose - From A Second Obama Term*
> 
> As the probability of President Barack Obama’s reelection grows, state and local officials across the country are tallying up the potential ramifications of a second term. For the most part, the biggest concerns lie with energy-producing states, which fear stricter environmental regulations, and those places most dependent on military or space spending, which are both likely to decrease under a second Obama administration.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2012)

Another news outlet investigates:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/02/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud



> *NBC2 Investigates: Voter fraud*
> Posted: Feb 02, 2012 2:34 PM EST
> Updated: Feb 02, 2012 6:32 PM EST
> By Andy Pierrotti, NBC2 Investigator - bio | email
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2012)

If this is true, it is a powerful confirmation of both the "Local Knowledge Problem' and the "Efficient Market Hypothesis". We will see in November...

http://news.ptest.investors.com/Article/600150/201202040805/january-stock-market-indicates-obama-loss.htm



> *Stock Market Predicts Defeat For President Obama*
> By PAUL WHITFIELD, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
> Posted 02/04/2012 08:05 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2012)

The legacy media is trying to maintain control of the narrative. Magazine covers of Obama riding unicorns is not likely going to cut it this election cycle, so careful editing of information (how many stories about labour force participation and the U3 unemployment number have you read lately in the lagacy media?) is going to be the name of the game now:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/06/wapoabc-ends-sample-transparency-in-national-polling/



> *WaPo/ABC ends sample transparency in national polling*
> POSTED AT 9:50 AM ON FEBRUARY 6, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
> 
> The Washington Post and ABC News has a new national poll out today.  It purports to show that Barack Obama has a 50% approval rating and that he would beat Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup.  And heck, that might even be true, except for a couple of problems.  First, this is a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.
> ...


----------



## cupper (6 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If this is true, it is a powerful confirmation of both the "Local Knowledge Problem' and the "Efficient Market Hypothesis". We will see in November...
> 
> http://news.ptest.investors.com/Article/600150/201202040805/january-stock-market-indicates-obama-loss.htm
> 
> ...



Interesting. It's happened 13 times, but the only examples provided are Carter, Reagan and Clinton, where dissatisfaction of the electorate played the big picture issue.

You may as well cut open a goat and sift through the entrails, you'd get as accurate an opinion.


----------



## cupper (6 Feb 2012)

Apparently the conservative media and GOP mouthpieces have a new whipping boy.

http://youtu.be/_PE5V4Uzobc

Most of the conservative news outlets had pundits on today slamming the Chrysler Superbowl Ad, crying foul at the attempt to give hope and asking Americans to rally together and pull themselves out of the current economic situation.


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

The reason is simple enough. The fact that bailing out the auto sector saved thousands of jobs and enabled them to restructure themselves into profitability takes away the GOP's ability to factually slog the Obama Adminstration about it. However, I'm sure we haven't heard anything near the last of it, though, since politicians (especially conservatives, it often seems) are loath to let facts get in the way of a good argument. They cannot stand the idea of someone saying "Hey, government intervention, despite being unpalatable, seems to have worked to stabilize the system..."



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Apparently the conservative media and GOP mouthpieces have a new whipping boy.
> 
> http://youtu.be/_PE5V4Uzobc
> 
> Most of the conservative news outlets had pundits on today slamming the Chrysler Superbowl Ad, crying foul at the attempt to give hope and asking Americans to rally together and pull themselves out of the current economic situation.


----------



## Jed (7 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The reason is simple enough. The fact that bailing out the auto sector saved thousands of jobs and enabled them to restructure themselves into profitability takes away the GOP's ability to factually slog the Obama Adminstration about it. However, I'm sure we haven't heard anything near the last of it, though, since politicians (especially conservatives, it often seems) are loath to let facts get in the way of a good argument. They cannot stand the idea of someone saying "Hey, government intervention, despite being unpalatable, seems to have worked to stabilize the system..."



Do you really believe this Redeye? Or are you just kidding around?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Feb 2012)

Redeye,

How do you know that letting the companies go into receivership, get bought out and restructed (or open the market for upstarts to take their place) would not have worked better?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Feb 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye,
> 
> How do you know that letting the companies go into receivership, get bought out and restructed (or open the market for upstarts to take their place) would not have worked better?



He knows, because it favours Obama.  So, the answer to the age-old question is this: it is good because Obama did it; Obama didn't do it because it was good.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Feb 2012)

Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, you have to like this:


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye,
> 
> How do you know that letting the companies go into receivership, get bought out and restructed (or open the market for upstarts to take their place) would not have worked better?



I don't. However, there's no good historical precedent to suggest it would work. GM, for example, tried to sell its Saturn brand off, and couldn't. Neither have they had much luck with SAAB Auto. I hate the phrase "too big to fail", but the reality is that the scale of the auto industry is such that it'd be hard to break it up, because the whole is worth orders of magnitude more than the sum of its parts. In an economically challenged area like the Rust Belt where the automotive industry is concentrated, the knock-on effects of shuttering the industry would have been absolutely devastating. Perhaps in the long run it might have been better, but throwing what, a half of million people out of work, couldn't be a good thing.

As far as opening the market to upstarts go, this is where that reverence for the free market and perfect competition breaks down. Perfect competition is extremely rare outside of the widget industry in an economics textbook. The idea of upstarts coming into the auto industry is almost laughable. The barriers to entry are staggering, because an upstart won't have the economies of scale or likely the capital necessary to start production, establish a dealer network, and actually compete with established brands. Look at companies like Tesla that have a good product concept, but they simply cannot enter the market effectively. This is the same reason governments offer incentives for things like plug-in hybrids (to bring down the cost to consumers thus stimulating more sales), and why the US Navy and Virgin Atlantic both paid large amounts of money for biofuels - because when the concept is proven to work, demand should eventually trigger those economies of scale.


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, you have to like this:



That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2012)

If you are looking for facts and figures WRT how the auto industry is doing now (especially metrics like cash flow, share prices, car sales etc.) try here.

Killing Saturn made no rational sense; given it was one of the few profitable divisions within GM. OTOH Saturn was upsetting quite a few apple carts in Detroit, so killing it off was probably a political favour (think of the UAW settling some scores while saying "thanks for the $50 billion"). SAAB, despite its cult car status, was pretty much dead (and I'll mourn it, being the once owner of a SAAB 99 Turbo) after GM took it over and made it essentially a rebadge operation for Opal and GM SUV's (the SAAB 93, previous generation 95 and 97). People who valued SAAB for its out of the box thinking were essentially told to get in the box or leave, so they left.

In all probability, a restructured (as opposed to bailed out) GM and Chrysler would be far smaller, leaner and more flexible operations with far healthier balance sheets and products. There were also 10 US automakers in 2008 with products in the advanced prototype stage or limited production, reorganization would have freed billions of dollars in assets that some or all could have bought at bargain prices (along with skilled workers), we could be talking about a "Big 4" or "Big 5" today without a bailout.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> we could be talking about a "Big 4" or "Big 5" today without a bailout.



..or we could be talking every car sold in North America is now made outside our borders, along with those jobs.

I'm not a big fan of President Obama but some of you people are friggin outrageous in your hatred..........smacks of a lot more than just policy to me.


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Killing Saturn made no rational sense; given it was one of the few profitable divisions within GM. OTOH Saturn was upsetting quite a few apple carts in Detroit, so killing it off was probably a political favour (think of the UAW settling some scores while saying "thanks for the $50 billion"). SAAB, despite its cult car status, was pretty much dead (and I'll mourn it, being the once owner of a SAAB 99 Turbo) after GM took it over and made it essentially a rebadge operation for Opal and GM SUV's (the SAAB 93, previous generation 95 and 97). People who valued SAAB for its out of the box thinking were essentially told to get in the box or leave, so they left.



If Saturn was profitable, why were there no takers for it? As I understand it, it was one of their least profitable brands. Despite its intensely loyal customers, it was being folded into the rest of GM. Its "revolutionary" Spring Hill, TN plant was converted into a more conventional plant, and flagging sales led them to start importing Opel Astras to save the brand.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> In all probability, a restructured (as opposed to bailed out) GM and Chrysler would be far smaller, leaner and more flexible operations with far healthier balance sheets and products. There were also 10 US automakers in 2008 with products in the advanced prototype stage or limited production, reorganization would have freed billions of dollars in assets that some or all could have bought at bargain prices (along with skilled workers), we could be talking about a "Big 4" or "Big 5" today without a bailout.



Gee, that's funny. Smaller, leaner, and more flexible operations with healthier balance sheets sounds pretty much exactly like what's going on right now.

Bought by whom exactly? Again, the bailout effort seemed to stem at the time from the belief that there wasn't likely to be any takers, as I recall.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..or we could be talking every car sold in North America is now made outside our borders, along with those jobs.



Funny, my Mitsubishi is made by North American workers in Illinois.  Guess we can have auto sector jobs in NA without GM eh ?


----------



## cupper (7 Feb 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye,
> 
> How do you know that letting the companies go into receivership, get bought out and restructed (or open the market for upstarts to take their place) would not have worked better?



One thing everyone seems to overlook in the auto bailout is that if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go into receivership, the number of unemployed would have skyrocketed way past the 9+% that we saw at peak. The direct jobs lost would have been bad enough, but the number of indirect jobs would have been devastating to the economy, and would have had more far reaching and long lasting effects than we have seen.


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Funny, my Mitsubishi is made by North American workers in Michigan.  Guess we can have auto sector jobs in NA without GM eh ?



The most "US components" car on the market in 2008 (or was it 2009?) was the Toyota Camry. I'd be unsurprised if it was still that way. It doesn't change the fact that GM and Chrysler directly employ tens of thousands, and they propel tens of thousands more jobs. So, had they collapsed, and a buyer not been found, how many people would have wound up employed. Even if eventually they had been reorganized, how long would it have taken, and what costs would have been borne in the meantime? I don't know. No one does. However, I'm inclined to believe that intervention to force the reorganization and downsizing they sorely needed, including forcing unions to accept huge concessions for future hires.

I don't like the idea of governments going into business like that - but again, the alternative to me seems to have been far, far worse. And I'd have to bear those costs as a taypayer too. I'll take the equity share in the automakers and the preservation of more jobs. It seems like it wasn't the worst bet out there, either.


----------



## cupper (7 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of President Obama but some of you people are friggin outrageous in your hatred..........smacks of a lot more than just policy to me.



You think it's bad on here, you should spend a couple of days living on the southern side of the Mason Dixon line, or better still south of the DC Beltway.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> smacks of a lot more than just policy to me.




Why don't you just come out and say it ?


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You think it's bad on here, you should spend a couple of days living on the southern side of the Mason Dixon line, or better still south of the DC Beltway.



My wife is from Georgia. Her old friends and family have some bizarre views of the world. And some frankly scary ones.


----------



## cupper (7 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why don't you just come out and say it ?



I'll say it.

There are definite racist overtones when it comes to the criticism of Obama.

I don't believe that anyone here is being racist, however a significant amount of what you here in the US news can be veiled racism.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

(unless it's a platypus  ;D )


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

It's not even subtle. Whether it's identifying him as "B. Hussein Obama", or other superfluous uses of his middle name, or the suggestion that he "doesn't get America" or the continued suggestions that he was born elsewhere, that he's a Muslim (that's not really racism, but it's the same vein), and so on, it's not subtle at all. It's not a fringe view, sadly.


----------



## GAP (7 Feb 2012)

Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?


----------



## Redeye (7 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?



Sadly, not even a little surprised.


----------



## cupper (7 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?



Nope. Fully expected it. For all the advances in racial equality that are claimed to have occurred since the 1960's you still see signs of racism and other forms of discrimination all over. Be it the illegal immigration debates, islamiphobia, homophobia, or what have you, it still exists and is still as ugly as ever.

And I fully expect a flood of sexism to come in when they elect their first woman president (or VP, which ever comes first)


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Gee, that's funny. Smaller, leaner, and more flexible operations with healthier balance sheets sounds pretty much exactly like what's going on right now.



Kind of like the unemployment rate is only 8.3% (Until you add back the people dropped out, recalculate the labour participation rate and hey presto, the unemployment rate is actually 11%!). Like I said, the metrics of car sales, cash flow and share prices tell a very different story about how GM is doing. The quick summary is if the US government were to sell the shares of GM right now, the US taxpayer would be taking a $16 billion dollar loss. Pretty lean, I'd say.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kind of like the unemployment rate is only 8.3% (Until you add back the people dropped out, recalculate the labour participation rate and hey presto, the unemployment rate is actually 11%!).



..and this has to do with this discussion how??



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Like I said, the metrics of car sales, cash flow and share prices tell a very different story about how GM is doing.



Source??


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2012)

Santorum seems to have upset Romney's applecart, a Gingrich's too, I guess.

This may be the GOP's _social conservative_ base's _revenge_ but, in my estimation, Santorum cannot attract many (any?) _Reagan Democrats_ and even fewer independents, thus a Santorum nomination, like Gingrich one, will guarantee a second Obama term.

Are we seeing an irrevocable split between _traditional_ Republicans and a new, _social conservative_ party that will give the Democrats a repeat of 1930 to 1970? Further, are the Democrats really united? Can the _Blue Dog Democrats_ really survive, as Democrats, under four more years of Obama vs the Tea Party?


----------



## GAP (8 Feb 2012)

I think this is just a bump, a sizable one, but out of the B team Santorum doesn't cut it....Gingrich draws up visions of total incompetence......

Romney doesn't offer much in the vision of competence, but when stacked up against the other clowns he's looking somewhat better.

Still don't see anyone capable of beating Obama and the Dem's election machine. The Republicans had better hope there is still some one out there that can instill a sense of leadership for 2016, these guys aren't doing it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2012)

Ironically, there are fewer overtones of racism among the criticisms against Obama than there are among the responses to those criticisms.  "Oh, it's racism!"


----------



## aesop081 (8 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Oh, it's racism!"



Exactly.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and this has to do with this discussion how??



This election will hinge heavily on perception, so expect to see "facts" heavily manipulated (sadly by both sides, even though the unvarnished truth will do nothing but help the Republicans). 



> Source??



Multiple sources are available in the "Let them Fail" thread

The auto industry _should_ be an election issue, since it is a dramatic example of Administration policy applied to one area of business. 

The extreme cost, the destruction of property rights (the legitimate owners of GM and Chrysler [the bond holders] being abruptly deprived of their position as first secured creditors), the abuse of the bankruptcy laws, government intrusion into all aspects of business from which dealers remained and which were closed to what models should be pushed and the ultimate lack of success should all reflect in a very negative way on the Administration.

What is even worse (if possible) was seeing a blurb in an automotive blog about the new Buick being a rebadged Chevy Cruze. Evidently GM management has learned nothing at all; this is the sort of product line pioneered in the 1980's that led to the long term decline of the GM brand. Since failure has been rewarded there has been no need to implement profound or sweeping changes; look for bailout redux at some future date.


----------



## Redeye (8 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The extreme cost, the destruction of property rights (the legitimate owners of GM and Chrysler [the bond holders] being abruptly deprived of their position as first secured creditors), the abuse of the bankruptcy laws, government intrusion into all aspects of business from which dealers remained and which were closed to what models should be pushed and the ultimate lack of success should all reflect in a very negative way on the Administration.



Extreme cost relative to what? What would the cost of any alternate course of been?

LEGITIMATE OWNERS?!

IN WHAT UNIVERSE, EXACTLY, HAVE BONDHOLDERS EVER BEEN THE LEGITIMATE OWNERS OF A COMPANY?

Corporate bonds are more technically debentures in that they're not secured by specific assets of the corporation (there are exceptions possibly, but I can't think of any off the top of my head). Their owners are creditors, they have no stake in the company's equity. Ever.

This nonsense constantly blathered about which dealerships were closed and which weren't doesn't seem to hold much water, and moreover, you're essentially arguing for the same sort of "bailout" if you're going to say that certain dealers should somehow have been protected. As for what models were pushed, again, where's an actual reasonable source that claims the government took that much of a role in the day to day operations of the business? I don't think that one exists. The only effort I've seen to claim one revolves around rebate structures for the Chevrolet Volt, which has more to do with governments wanting to encourage the development of technologies which reduce dependence on fossil fuels. You know that "energy independence" stuff everyone (including the right) goes on about? Supporting those technologies supports that goal. It's a long term vision kind of thing, something that the right seems to fail at, comparatively speaking, to "progressives" who seem to be a lot more interested in the long term outcomes.

If the auto industry does indeed become a major issue, I think it'll be an excellent example of the GOP choosing the wrong hill to die on (and frankly, any hill they choose seems like it'll serve that purpose), and I suspect they know that.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2012)

I'll leave you to read the Let them Fail thread, or not. The issues are addressed there.

Meanwhile the price of fuel is another issue which should throw the race wide open if this report by ABC news is correct. Access to inexpensive energy is the foundation of modern economies, so a huge spike like the one predicted will be devastating for the economy. Even a spike of .20 will bring higher prices in food and goods, slowing economic activity :

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gas-prices-spike-60-cents/story?id=15519576&fb_ref=.TzNNuo0rXPg.like&fb_source=home_oneline#.TzNOjV15GqR



> *Gas prices to spike 60 cents or more by May*
> Gas Prices Seem Poised to RiseAuto Start: On | Off
> ShareEmail45 CommentsPrintText Size- / +By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY
> February 6, 2012
> ...


----------



## Redeye (9 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'll leave you to read the Let them Fail thread, or not. The issues are addressed there.



By your cut and paste jobs from blog sources that are of little credibility as  they're simply partisan tripe.

So, we'll go with "not addressed". Thanks.


----------



## Redeye (9 Feb 2012)

We were on the topic of supposed voter fraud a while ago, here's a link that shows why James O'Keefe's antics are pretty ridiculous. In fact, it's a pretty solid takedown of his claims about voter fraud, and his "investigations". Have a read: http://www.mediaite.com/online/james-okeefes-fake-tim-tebow-voter-fraud-investigation-doesnt-have-a-prayer/


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Feb 2012)

Levity, with a bit of seriousness (perhaps):


----------



## cupper (9 Feb 2012)

Interesting note from the latest Gallop Poll on Congress' approval rating. It is now at an historic all time low of 10%. Gallop has never recorded a number this low in the 100+ years of it's existence.

But it appears that they may be starting to get the message. Both the House and Senate have passed the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) bill. So now they won't be able to cash in on the insider knowledge like they have been, something which no other American is legally able to do.

AND

The house has passed a bill allowing the President the line item veto which every president has asked for since at least Carter, if not further back. No idea at this point what the success of the measure will be in the Senate.


----------



## Haletown (10 Feb 2012)

Well he does give good speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJGp5pjgT30

Too bad he didn't give good economy, or good policy.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2012)

He says he admires President Lincoln. Perhaps this is how he is managing to "alienate all of the people, all of the time":

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/charles-krauthammer-the-obama-creed-of-contradictory-theologies/



> *Charles Krauthammer: The Obama creed of contradictory theologies*
> Charles Krauthammer  Feb 10, 2012 – 9:15 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 10, 2012 1:56 PM ET
> 
> At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’
> ...



and:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/11/rex-murphy-on-obamas-war-against-christianity-when-the-church-struck-back/



> *Rex Murphy on Obama’s war against Christianity: When the Church struck back*
> Rex Murphy  Feb 11, 2012 – 5:55 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 10, 2012 4:45 PM ET
> 
> The American administration is headed by a man who, when he wishes, makes a good deal of his Christianity. Churches, one in particular, used to matter very much to Barack Obama indeed. He made his first real move as a politician by choosing an appropriate church in Chicago — Obama walked into politics through its front door.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.

It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to). I suspect President Obama's campaign team is laughing their arses off. Even as the GOP clutches at straws to frame it differently, it seems they're going to have a lot of trouble with this. It's even helping Santorum surge (pardon the horrific imagery) within the GOP Primaries, and that's even better.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> He says he admires President Lincoln. Perhaps this is how he is managing to "alienate all of the people, all of the time":
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/charles-krauthammer-the-obama-creed-of-contradictory-theologies/
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.
> 
> It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to). I suspect President Obama's campaign team is laughing their arses off. Even as the GOP clutches at straws to frame it differently, it seems they're going to have a lot of trouble with this. It's even helping Santorum surge (pardon the horrific imagery) within the GOP Primaries, and that's even better.


The point isn't whether or not people use or don't use contraceptives, or their views on abortion.   The point is forcing those who oppose these things to pay for them.   The analogy would be to force all butcher shops in a town to sell pork.  Even the butcher shop owned by that Jewish fella around the corner.

As for "laughing their arses off", the image of contempt for others is rather fitting, because I too can imagine them doing so.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.
> 
> It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to).



Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome.  

The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.

So I guess the GOP arguing for individual rights, in your mind, is not great.  

Now, if this were the opposite, and it was that Obama was forcing everyone to pay for religious schools and hospitals, I assume you would be against it, since you apparently have a blinding hatred towards religion


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

[tangent]
"Render unto Caesar" as a call for people of wealth to pay high taxes.  Indeed.  Let us look at the passage in question:



> Next they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to catch him out in what he said.
> 14 These came and said to him, 'Master, we know that you are an honest man, that you are not afraid of anyone, because human rank means nothing to you, and that you teach the way of God in all honesty. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or not?'
> 15 Recognising their hypocrisy he said to them, 'Why are you putting me to the test? Hand me a denarius and let me see it.'
> 16 They handed him one and he said to them, 'Whose portrait is this? Whose title?' They said to him, 'Caesar's.'
> 17 Jesus said to them, 'Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God.' And they were amazed at him.


This is from the Gospel according to Mark, Chapter 12.  In this chapter we see some religious opponents of Jesus trying to trick him.  They opposed him because he was preaching what they considered heresy.  You know, such things as equality for all, an end to racism, etc.  So, they tried to get him to say that people should oppose the Roman occupiers of Israel.  As had been stated many times, Jesus wasn't there to save Israel from occupation, but from eternal damnation.  

So, by separating Church and State, as Jesus is advocating, he is essentially stating that paying taxes back to the government from whom your bank notes are issued is fine.  But your moral code is yours, and never the twain shall mix.  They are separate issues.

Interestingly enough, a few verses later, Jesus says:



> 29 Jesus replied, 'This is the first: Listen, Israel, the Lord our God is the one, only Lord,
> 30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.
> 31 The second is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.



The "Golden Rule".

Now, I wonder if the anti-theists would care to comment on this:


> Obama said he wakes up every morning and says a “brief prayer” and spends “a little time in scripture and devotion.” He said pastors sometimes come to the Oval Office to pray with him, for his family and for the country.
> “But I don’t stop there, I’d be remiss if i stopped there,” Obama said. “If my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends — so instead I must try, imperfectly, but I must try to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.”


 (Source)


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome.
> 
> The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.
> 
> ...



The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, other than some bishops, who really has an issue with this. Numerous Catholic universities and hospitals have been including contraceptives in their health plans for years. Something like 98% of sexually active Americans use some form of contraception, suggesting that most American Catholics also ignore church doctrine on the matter. Most of them seem to have no issue with the law/order in question. The point is simple: why should the religious bent of an employer be allowed to determine the health choices of its employees? Granted, I don't know why someone who wasn't Catholic would work for them, but obviously it does happen. This isn't an individual freedom issue as far as I can tell, unless you really, really stretch it. And that seems to be how most Americans are looking at it, no matter how desperately the GOP is trying to reframe it.

Obama forcing people to pay for religious schools and hospitals would be rather simply dealt with by the Establishment Clause of Constitution of the United States of America. Google it if you're not familiar with it.

What I find particularly rich, especially for the vehemently antichoice conservative set in the US, is that improving access to contraception would actually reduce demand for abortion, whereas making it harder to obtain such services and products increases the demand. So I'm finding it hard to see where they're coming from, and it seems to be more about control of women than anything else. That's nothing new, though.

My brilliant, much more polemic friend Ian Boudreau offers some better ones, first some humourous ones.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage for contraception, or serving black people.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to allow menstruating women in their places of business.

You must respect the religious beliefs of your employer, whatever those might be. This may involve wearing a special hat.

Employers shouldn't have to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to pay employees who might use their wages for alcohol or ham.

He actually goes into the whole thing a lot more deeply here: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/02/05/more-thoughts-on-catholicism-and-contraception/#more-67359 - specifically tackling the special pleading that it takes to actually make an issue of this. It's well written (as is most of his stuff) and worth the time.


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

I'll be happy to see religion die a natural death, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Most religious people I know I haven't a shred of an issue with. Most of them are decent people. I don't understand their need of religion, but I accept they similarly don't understand my lack of need for it. Lots of them will engage in interesting discussions over it. I don't pull punches on people who use it as an excuse for their own ignorance, bigotry, etc. And sadly, that happens. It's kind of ironic, especially in the case of Christians.

I defer to Gandhi, who observed that Christ sounded like a pretty good guy, but his followers were nothing like him. In fact, one of the most humourous but apt descriptions of him, paraphrased, comes from the prologue to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, which sets the timeline for the story up this way:



> And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...



Ultimately, that was the real message, wasn't it? Love one another as I have loved you, and so on? He didn't put conditions on it as I recall.

Gandhi noticed that too many Christians were not like Christ, a man who would probably be described in modern times as something of a liberal. See, what he preached - what you mentioned there - the "good stuff" is suddenly opposed by so many who claim to be his followers. That's never made any sense to me. It's those people that have so perverted the concept that have turned me so solidly against it.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, blah blah blah


If you think opposition to this is restricted to guys who are named after pieces on a chess set, then you're mistaken.

(The rest of your post is so asinine, I care not to comment)


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'll be happy to see religion die a natural death, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Blah Blah Blah



You, sir, are illogical and full of bigotry.  You hate Christians, you just fear saying it.   Atheists are one thing.  Anti-theists are another.


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If you think opposition to this is restricted to guys who are named after pieces on a chess set, then you're mistaken.



Actually, it's being pushed, it seems, more by evangelicals. And "rank-and-file" Catholics generally don't seem to support the church leaders. Something like 2/3s of them don't take issue with the policy



> (The rest of your post is so asinine, I care not to comment)



No shock there.


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You, sir, are illogical and full of bigotry.  You hate Christians, you just fear saying it.   Atheists are one thing.  Anti-theists are another.



No. I don't hate anyone solely on that basis. That'd be silly.

I'm both an atheist and an antitheist. I make no secret of that. Both are positions on institutions, not individuals.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Something like 2/3s of them don't take issue with the policy


Based on what????  Numbers from your ass?

Read this:

And I quote



> 3* The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?
> 39% Yes
> 50% No
> 10% Not sure


They didn't ask Catholics this question.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm both an atheist and an antitheist. I make no secret of that. Both are positions on institutions, *not individuals*.


Bullshit.  You are a bigot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye,

I would like to just point out that this whole death spiral got started because of your "render unto caesar" comment,  which Technoviking pretty convincingly used to prove that you need to do lot more research before you spout off on Christianity.

Why do you feel the need to get the last word, all of the time?


----------



## Jed (11 Feb 2012)

I'm no religious expert Redeye, but Jesus wasn't always a wimp. If I recall he booted a bunch of money grubbing, holier than thou folks, out of the temple. He demanded respect and he got it.

I respect your right to be an atheist or whatever your beliefs are; I don't understand it or agree with it but I tolerate it and don't mock you for your non belief.

Your blind belief in President Obama defies all logic to me.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

You all realize that the Federal regulations are less restrictive than most of the 27 states that have regulations requiring birth control to be covered. In those states no allowance is made for religious objections. Period.

So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Feb 2012)

And yet, the White House seems to have backed down.  why?


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2012)

Judging by American - rather than Canadian - media and reported opinion, the people opposed to the government see this as a question of religious (freedom of thought/belief) rights and the people in favour of the government see this as an issue of the particulars (contraception, abortion).  The former are correct and hold the constitutional high ground; that is why the latter are going to lose.  There is a distinction - and it doesn't take an exceptionally penetrating mind to make it - between defending the right of the church to its doctrine, and taking issue with various points of doctrine (are they sensible, reasonable, just, etc).  It is of a piece with defending the right of a person to hold an opinion, without necessarily agreeing with that opinion or even finding it thoroughly distasteful or immoral.

Christianity in general is a religion full of people who understand and parrot the doctrine of their churches without necessarily being virtuous practitioners.  They will defend the right of the church to hold and teach its principles while not necessarily themselves abiding by all of those principles.  And the people who are not Catholics can easily enough see that it could be their favoured organization or church in the crosshairs.  The government will lose.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2012)

>So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.

It shows they understand their constitution, and the difference between federal rights and states' rights.  From the start it has been entirely uncontroversial that states might establish churches, or establish laws favouring or disfavouring them.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And yet, the White House seems to have backed down.  why?



Not so much backed down, as found a way to spin it so it is more palatable.

Religious organizations will still pay for it, just not explicitly. Because we all know that the insurance companies are so generous and will fall over themselves to cover the cost of contraception and not try to recoup the costs by raising premiums. :


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2012)

Funny how many Republicans seem focused on the religious credentials and 'piety' of their potential leader and are engaged by a debate between a philandering Catholic and a Mormon about who is more pious for a largely Presbyterian/Baptist/Congregationalist audience.  Meanwhile, the guy they vehemently oppose seems to fit the bill as a devout Protestant without any real hint of personal controversy in his past.

If President Obama were a member of the Republican Party and running in this current race, he'd probably be a shoo-in over Romney and Gingrich.  Odd thing, politics is.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, other than some bishops, who really has an issue with this. Numerous Catholic universities and hospitals have been including contraceptives in their health plans for years. Something like 98% of sexually active Americans use some form of contraception, suggesting that most American Catholics also ignore church doctrine on the matter. Most of them seem to have no issue with the law/order in question. The point is simple: why should the religious bent of an employer be allowed to determine the health choices of its employees? Granted, I don't know why someone who wasn't Catholic would work for them, but obviously it does happen. This isn't an individual freedom issue as far as I can tell, unless you really, really stretch it. And that seems to be how most Americans are looking at it, no matter how desperately the GOP is trying to reframe it.
> 
> Obama forcing people to pay for religious schools and hospitals would be rather simply dealt with by the Establishment Clause of Constitution of the United States of America. Google it if you're not familiar with it.
> 
> ...



This was perhaps the most insulting, debasing, and overall worthless collection of drivel I have ever read, and I had to take philosophy for a year.

As Technoviking said- you're a bigot.  The examples you put here are so lacking in value that it truly boggles my mind.... forcing catholic institutions, run by catholics and paid by catholics to pay for birth control when it violates their beliefs would go against the free exercise clause (and I didn't even have to google that!), and since it is not overall harmful to society, therin not requiring the compelling interest doctrine to kick in, there is no requirement to force this on those institutions.

If you or any other atheist were forced to pay for a religious activity you'd be crying foul in the streets...

Also, not every conservative is anti-choice.  Same as not every liberal is anti-death sentence.  Your arrogant attitude towards conservative views and the GOP smack of bigotry.

Finally, you aren't an atheist... your a new born obamist.  The religion of $900 billion dollar deficits, dithering, and over-alll poor leadership abilities.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Feb 2012)

op:


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

But it also comes down to: do the rights of the organization / group trump those of the individual.

The states have placed the right of the individual above the organization by stating that religious organizations and institutions that employ persons that do not follow the same beliefs must still provide services that would be available to anyone else regardless of teh employers beliefs.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If you or any other atheist were forced to pay for a religious activity you'd be crying foul in the streets...



Athiests are forced to pay for religious activity, by having donations to religious institutions tax-deductible and by not making for-profit organizations (yes, that's right, I said it) pay taxes, but there is little noise if any about that. If anyone wants to debate that, you can PM me.

In any case, this whole debate has only one answer... Battle Royale... no I'm kidding... but really, a simple solution, if the Federal government just provided contraception and/or abortions, it would solve this whole damn fiasco.

I don't think it's a good idea to try and force organizations to provide anything for their employees that contradicts or conflicts with that organization's values / mission statement.

On another note, it blows my mind that anyone can think birth control or condoms are somehow immoral.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2012)

Ok.  Stop with the name calling.  Let's drop the religious chatter and insinuations before I start locking threads/issuing warnings.

The Staff.


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I respect your right to be an atheist or whatever your beliefs are; I don't understand it or agree with it but I tolerate it and don't mock you for your non belief.



I'll never understand people who still believe either, but all else equal, I'll defend your right to, regardless of what you may believe so long as it doesn't wind up institutionalizing any form of discrimination. I have friends of every major religion I've spent as much time as possible trying to understand. I may loathe the concept when I see the harm it causes but neither I nor anyone else can force anyone to give it up. But it's great to get people to ask questions. That's it, that's all. 



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Your blind belief in President Obama defies all logic to me.



What "blind belief"? When Obama emerge on the national political scene in the US at the DNC in 2004 he made an amazing speech that caught a lot of attention because he spoke like few others, he sounded like he had ideas no one has really expressed before. He won the Dem nomination in 2008 deservedly, and I liked him. I was pleased to see him win, and more to see that he seemed to get more people engaged in politics. To make that happen in the USA is an accomplishment. 

He took a job I doubt most people would want. He inherited a country embroiled in two wars, with an economy in shambles, and no easy answers. He couldn't really do much in the first couple of years without a lot of horse trading, and because of that it seemed like a lot of people disengaged in the 2010 midterms, delivering the most disapproved of Congress according to polls in recent history. In the face of the complete legislative paralysis, he still managed to get some things done, though he comes under fire from those in his party who expected him to be some kind of messianic figure, which is of course ridiculous. 

Do I "blindly believe" in him? Not even a little. A decent, moderate conservative who didn't pander to the social conservative faction would catch my attention. I thought in 2008 he was the best man for the job. Based on what I've seen for 2012, he still is. But it's not blind anything. Ultimately I'm a pragmatist, I will bet on the best option available but I've not as long as I've been able to wrap my head around politics seen anything I'd blindly believe in. In Canada or the USA. Give me a social liberal candidate with a reasonable fiscal plan and and ability to present a vision beyond one election cycle, and maybe I'll get close to blind belief, but that is unlikely to ever happen on either side of the border. Our politics are too broken to allow for it.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome.
> 
> The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.
> 
> ...



The problem with your argument is this: The GOP is not arguing for individual rights. They are arguing for the rights of an organized group of people over the rights of the individual.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So for the GOP to pick this fight just lends more evidence that they have no concept of what the American public is really concerned about.
> 
> It shows they understand their constitution, and the difference between federal rights and states' rights.  From the start it has been entirely uncontroversial that states might establish churches, or establish laws favouring or disfavouring them.



Unfortunately, The Supreme Court has upheld that the Establishment Clause can be extended to the States as well based on the 14th Amendment.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> On another note, it blows my mind that anyone can think birth control or condoms are somehow immoral.


That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use. 

To illustrate, allow me to go back to the pork analogy.  I love bacon.  I eat it every day.  I cannot fathom how anyone could see that as immoral.  Yet it would be immoral for me to force a jew or a muslim to have anything to do with the production of bacon.  That's the point.

Anyway, Obama 54%, Romney 43%, "other" 3% (write ins, spoiled ballots, etc).  Four more years.  I'm calling it now.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

Judging by American - rather than Canadian - media and reported opinion, the people opposed to the government see this as a question of religious (freedom of thought/belief) rights

No, they see it as separation of church and state, in that the state is interfering with the doctrines of the church. It's only being couched as an argument of freedom of conscience  

and the people in favour of the government see this as an issue of the particulars (contraception, abortion). 

Again, no. They view it as an issue of rights of the individual vs the rights of an organization

The former are correct and hold the constitutional high ground; that is why the latter are going to lose.  

Don't be so sure. State mandates have been upheld as constitutional, so there is no reason that the Federal mandate would not be upheld as well. It does not interfere with the practice of a religion, thus it passes the Lemon test established by the Supreme Court regarding the Establishment Clause, and the Freedom Clause


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> When Obama emerge on the national political scene in the US at the DNC in 2004 he made an amazing speech that caught a lot of attention because he spoke like few others, he sounded like he had ideas no one has really expressed before. He won the Dem nomination in 2008 deservedly, and I liked him. I was pleased to see him win, and more to see that he seemed to get more people engaged in politics. To make that happen in the USA is an accomplishment.



Not so much an accomplishment as influence by party insiders who pushed their chosen candidate.

Many Dems felt that Obama was the future of the Party, but not for the 2008 nomination. They felt that he needed to spend time on the national scene, run out his Senate term then either run as the second on the ticket of the incumbent, or seek the nomination when the second term of the incumbent ran out.


----------



## cupper (11 Feb 2012)

All of this discussion is moot anyway, as was pointed out earlier, Obama caved, backtracked, flip flopped, tweaked, spun, or whatever term you want to use.

But going back a moment, this was never about religious freedom anyway for the GOP. It was about fighting against "Obamacare", and co=opting using religious freedom as an argument for dismantling a policy they have vowed will not survive past January 2013.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use.
> 
> To illustrate, allow me to go back to the pork analogy.  I love bacon.  I eat it every day.  I cannot fathom how anyone could see that as immoral.  Yet it would be immoral for me to force a jew or a muslim to have anything to do with the production of bacon.  That's the point.
> 
> Anyway, Obama 54%, Romney 43%, "other" 3% (write ins, spoiled ballots, etc).  Four more years.  I'm calling it now.



We're sidetracked, but two comments:

1. I don't need a "forcing bacon on a Muslim" example, and frankly I don't know what to think of the fact that you consider me that dense that I needed that example . I am aware that I can't force my beliefs on morality on someone else. I am not preaching to anyone to wear a condom (I don't give a flying curse word if they choose not to wrap it up) or asking for a law to be passed that requires someone to wear one or to make them take a job at a condom factory.

All I said was it blows my mind that people can think it's immoral. Abortion I can understand, even if I don't agree, I can see where they are coming from (where does life begin? etc). Condoms, birth control, the like... I don't even understand the argument or where it comes from.

2. Rick Santorum has said that the state should have the right to ban birth control and sodomy. A more fitting example to the issue would be a Muslim trying to stop you from eating bacon. Don't tell me you wouldn't be pissed off.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> That may be the case, but it's irrelevant what you think about the morality of contraceptives and their use.



And it should be equally irrelevant what Rick Santorum thinks about contraceptives and their use. It's not, unfortunately.


----------



## cupper (12 Feb 2012)

Another problem with the issue there is no allowance made for the coverage of prescriptions for hormonal birth control for non-contraceptive use.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2012)

Unless the administration has properly caved since Friday, the Friday manoeuvre which was supposed to look like a flip-flop has not been accepted.

There isn't a "rights of individual vs rights of organization" issue at stake, unless one can not distinguish between political rights and employment benefits.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Feb 2012)

This issue WAS all about the Constitution. The democrats dont like the Constitution they see the document as an impediment to their statist objectives.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> All I said was it blows my mind that people can think it's immoral.



Fair enough (though I don't know why Santorum is even mentioned, but that's another thread, I suppose).  Anyway, a simplistic version of the argument can be found in Monty Python's "the meaning of life".  You know, "bloody catholics filling the bloody world with their bloody children" and all that.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Based on what????  Numbers from your ***?



Based on numbers from Catholics For Choice. They've got a number of articles, research papers, and information on their site on a variety of issues. All on this topic are here: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/contraception/keypubs.asp The 2/3 number comes from the organization's director's various submissions to the US Congress, and a message circulated by HuffPo. You can find it here: www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-obrien/catholics-birth-control-contraception_b_1110212.html

The source appears to come from this 2004 global study: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/prevention/documents/2004worldview.pdf - it shows that actual Catholic attitudes toward sexual health, contraception, etc differ from those of the Church's authorities. From page 3:



> Whatever paths Catholics choose to follow, what is evident in this report is
> that Catholics are not monolithic in their views, and more often than not disagree with
> the positions of the church on these issues. It is critical that those who develop public
> policy and those who serve Catholics as health care and social service providers are
> ...



I'd go one further and say that members of any group, be it a social group, professional association, religion, whatever are not monolithic.

On page 12:



> UNITED STATES:
>  61% of Catholics disagree with the church’s teaching on contraception.
> Source: Zogby International conducted a survey commissioned by LeMonyne College and originally
> published in USA Today. Deal Hudson, “Sed Contra,” Crisis, January 1, 2002.
> ...



Page 13:



> A strong majority of American Catholic women (76%) prefer to have a community
> hospital that offers emergency contraception for rape victims while more than half (57%)
> want a hospital that provides it to prevent pregnancy.
> Source: Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services: A National Survey of Women. A national
> ...



This one fascinated me, in fact it sharply changed the way I view Catholics. I'm adult enough to admit to generalizing probably too much, as everyone does, and on this one I was definitely wrong. It doesn't provide a gender breakdown, that I would be most interested in. I'd almost bet money that most of the prolifers are men, most of the prochoicers are women Anyone, here's what it says: Page 16:



> During the 2000 US presidential election campaign, Catholic voters were more likely
> to be prochoice than antichoice and a strong majority (66%) believed abortion should
> be legal.



Page 21, citing what the church says: 



> Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to
> which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury
> to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a
> new union, even if it is recognized by civil laws, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the
> remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery.



We know that Catholics don't always agree, even though some will go through an annulment process to avoid using the term divorce. More than half of American Catholics (57%) believe it's possible to be a good Catholic while ignoring teachings on divorce and marriage (p. 22).

Page 23:



> Church teachings are outdated
>  CANADA: 74% of Catholics agree that “the doctrine of the Catholic church regarding
> things such as abortion, contraception and the marriage of priests is dated and
> out of sync with the times.”
> ...



Page 26-7 discussed the church and politics:



>  70% of Catholic voters during the 2002 [United States] national election campaign did not believe
> that Catholic bishops should use politics to impose their moral opinions.



So, no, I didn't pull any of this out of my arse. I got it from a variety of sources. Which is why I questioned who really was so outraged about this idea. It's that simple.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Fair enough (though I don't know why Santorum is even mentioned, but that's another thread, I suppose).  Anyway, a simplistic version of the argument can be found in Monty Python's "the meaning of life".  You know, "bloody catholics filling the bloody world with their bloody children" and all that.



Santorum, generally, has made the most "controversial" (outrageous?) statements on the issue. It's particularly rich for him, given that despite his efforts to describe it in other terms, his wife, on the advice of a physician, terminated a pregnancy (which, colloquially, is called an "abortion").


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's particularly rich for him, given that despite his efforts to describe it in other terms, his wife, on the advice of a physician, terminated a pregnancy (which, colloquially, is called an "abortion").



I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Catholics are allowed to have abortions? Obviously her health was at risk with the pregnancy. He's allowed to have his views, and dragging his wife's difficulties with pregnancy is dirty pool IMO.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Catholics are allowed to have abortions? Obviously her health was at risk with the pregnancy. He's allowed to have his views, and dragging his wife's difficulties with pregnancy is dirty pool IMO.



It depends - they run the gamut, though it seems Catholics are more pragmatic about it. Most of the "not even for rape or incest" types seem to be extremist evangelicals. And you're right. It is. So I'll withdraw the comment - besides, without it there's no shortage of reasons why Santorum shouldn't (and won't) get the nomination.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> besides, without it there's no shortage of reasons why Santorum shouldn't (and won't) get the nomination.



I would agree with you here that Santorum is far too right-wing to be a real challenge to the White House. Some of his stuff comes right out of the 1950s.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would agree with you here that Santorum is far too right-wing to be a real challenge to the White House. Some of his stuff comes right out of the 1950s.



Yes - I was also of the understanding that didn't believe in the "rape, incest, life of the mother" exception concept for abortions. He's made some conflicting statements about it, but it seems that's pretty clearly his position.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

These discussions of religion are all fluff, and at the end of the day, irrelevant issues that serve as distractions from the real issues.  The real trend for messaging should be the fact that Obama has:
1.  wracked up a ton of debt (with another $901 billion coming);
2. Not really accomplished anything (Even the majority of Obamacare doesn't kick in until next year);
3. Conducted a military engagement in Libya without consulting congress or passing any sort of real bill;
4. Violated the territorial integritym, ie- invaded, Pakistan to get Bin Laden (Which was good to kill him, but still internationally illegal);
5. Not really fixed any of the other problems in the country (Mortgages, etc).

His appologists will say it's because of the fact that the GOP blocked everything he was trying to do, but he did have a great deal of time with a Democratic congress and senate, and didn't really do much there either.  Except wrack up debt.... he's good at that.

Bush dealt with the same issues when he was president, having a democratic house- he just didn't have the media love in that Obama has.

America will likely go with Obama in 2012, pushing it further into the gutter


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Based on numbers from Catholics For Choice.- This seems like a pretty0 neatural site
> 
> And the Huffington post? Another neutral source.
> 
> And you ALWAYS rail on fox news, why?


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

HuffPo isn't the source I'm citing. It's the source of the surface quoted stat, which I then provided the sources for, in detail. When you can refute them all (and they use a vast swath of surveys and research studies), come on back.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Bush dealt with the same issues when he was president, having a democratic house- he just didn't have the media love in that Obama has.



It's like you're not even trying. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for 25% of Bush's term in office. They won a majority of the house in 2006. Ditto the Senate.


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> These discussions of religion are all fluff, and at the end of the day, irrelevant issues that serve as distractions from the real issues.



I suspect that the fluff is necessary to keep discussion away from things like Mitt's offshore assets and taxes, or his healthcare record, or whatever else they may not wish to discuss.

As for the messaging, I'll submit some problems for consideration:



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The real trend for messaging should be the fact that Obama has:
> 1.  wracked up a ton of debt (with another $901 billion coming);



The platforms of the GOP contenders do the same - or worse - via their tax plans. There's no credibility for them on this issue.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 2. Not really accomplished anything (Even the majority of Obamacare doesn't kick in until next year);



Not accomplished anything the GOP likes. However, he's accomplished a lot. Here's a first year list: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/19/805925/-90-Accomplishments-of-Pres-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report- - since then there's been more. I'm pretty sure that Obama's campaign will highlight. As far as Obamacare goes, some of the most important provisions are already in place - enabling people to get coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, children to stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 3. Conducted a military engagement in Libya without consulting congress or passing any sort of real bill;



This might go somewhere, but it's conceivable that it can be deflected by pointing out that a broad based UN sanctioned operation got rid of a long standing thorn in the side of the USA and an affront to its ideals of democracy.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 4. Violated the territorial integritym, ie- invaded, Pakistan to get Bin Laden (Which was good to kill him, but still internationally illegal);



I'm going to laugh pretty hard if they actually go down this road.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 5. Not really fixed any of the other problems in the country (Mortgages, etc).



Did you miss the deal that was just struck this week? That's a pretty good start to fixing things. More importantly, I think this would be great to see become a major debate topic. I'd like to see some really good efforts to come up with ideas on how to move forward.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> His appologists will say it's because of the fact that the GOP blocked everything he was trying to do, but he did have a great deal of time with a Democratic congress and senate, and didn't really do much there either.  Except wrack up debt.... he's good at that.



Having a Democratic Congress didn't help much. Unlike Canada's Parliament which has pretty strict party discipline and tends to debate bills with a single focus, the US Congress will debate bills with all sorts of riders and interests injected. The Democrats were not a unified force, the debate over healthcare reform showed that.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not accomplished anything the GOP likes. However, he's accomplished a lot. Here's a first year list: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/19/805925/-90-Accomplishments-of-Pres-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report- - since then there's been more. I'm pretty sure that Obama's campaign will highlight. As far as Obamacare goes, some of the most important provisions are already in place - enabling people to get coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, children to stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.
> 
> 
> Yes, here's some of the more ridiculous gems from this list:
> ...


----------



## Redeye (12 Feb 2012)

You need to learn how the quote function works.

I didn't write the list, and most of them are minor. But not all. the contention you made was "he hasn't done much of anything", which I think is aptly demonstrated to be false. Is you want a better interactive and constantly updated list, check out the humourously named http://whatthef***hasobamadonesofar.com/ You will, of course, need to replace the asterisks with the appropriate letters.

As far as Obamacare goes, the CBO's studies showed (and still show) that it will SAVE money in the long term, so that's a bit of a red herring.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You need to learn how the quote function works.
> 
> I didn't write the list, and most of them are minor. But not all. the contention you made was "he hasn't done much of anything", which I think is aptly demonstrated to be false. Is you want a better interactive and constantly updated list, check out the humourously named http://whatthef***hasobamadonesofar.com/ You will, of course, need to replace the asterisks with the appropriate letters.
> 
> As far as Obamacare goes, the CBO's studies showed (and still show) that it will SAVE money in the long term, so that's a bit of a red herring.



You used the list as an example of what Obama has done.  So by any standard, you proved that Obama really hasn't done much of anything.  If anyone in the military had only 90 things they had accomplished over a 4 year period and the majority of those things were A) Not really due to anything they did, and B) not really actually accomplishing anything (calling meetings or suggesting a service paper by written) than HOPEFULLY that person would not be a MOI, which is what you seem to suggest Obama is, unless of course, the person writing his PER was biased towards him (which is what you are doing).  

As for the quote function... I'll use it properly when you properly apply logic instead of just refuting things with biased left wing evidence or studies you say you've read.  I have no dog in the US hunt so to speak, but I remember that during the last election Obama spoke of changing the world, and he seemed to have a spark.  Since then, the US is essentially exactly the same, except a few trillion dollars poorer, and with more income inbalance.  

YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Redeye (13 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> You used the list as an example of what Obama has done.  So by any standard, you proved that Obama really hasn't done much of anything.  If anyone in the military had only 90 things they had accomplished over a 4 year period and the majority of those things were A) Not really due to anything they did, and B) not really actually accomplishing anything (calling meetings or suggesting a service paper by written) than HOPEFULLY that person would not be a MOI, which is what you seem to suggest Obama is, unless of course, the person writing his PER was biased towards him (which is what you are doing).



I'm trying to figure out exactly what logical fallacy this is. I think non sequitur sort of applies. The means of assessing the term of a president and someone in the military are totally different, in every imaginable way. By the nature of the structure of the US government, while the Chief Executive ultimately bears responsibility for what happens over his term (remember "the buck stops here"?), Presidents cannot initiate legislation themselves.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for the quote function... I'll use it properly when you properly apply logic instead of just refuting things with biased left wing evidence or studies you say you've read.  I have no dog in the US hunt so to speak, but I remember that during the last election Obama spoke of changing the world, and he seemed to have a spark.  Since then, the US is essentially exactly the same, except a few trillion dollars poorer, and with more income inbalance.



Another non sequitur. I was merely suggesting it's easier to follow posts if the quotes are done properly.

I eagerly await your refuting the study you're criticizing (actually, it's a summary of something like 20 studies). I trust that since you're so keen to dismiss them, you in fact actually have evidence that does that.

Wait, you don't? Alright then. Moving right along...

Saying the USA is "exactly the same" is patently false. Tell that people who finally have health insurance. Tell that to gays who now can serve in the military without their career being ended on account of who they are. (If you don't think that's significant, look at the stats on how many people were kicked out under DADT - linguists, intelligence analysts, pilots - people in whom massive amounts of money had been invested). Tell that to 11 million children (4 million of whom were uninsured) who got health insurance when President Obama signed a bill getting them coverage. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of Americans who worked in the auto industry or have jobs tied to it - that's small business people in towns all over America.

Is everything rosy in the USA? Not even a little bit. Things are still pretty rough there. But a country that prides itself on solving its problems can do better. It will. Handing more money to its wealthiest citizens (which seems to be the only real platform promoted by the GOP) won't do it. Invading Iran doesn't do it (and it terrifies me that there are some of them talking about such things. Slashing at the social programs that are keeping people from starving in the streets won't do it. There is absolutely room to discuss changing any programs, and nothing should be off the table, but where are the reasonable proposals? Where's the effort from the Congress? More people need to get engaged, and the noise has to be gotten out of the system. Problem is that the keeping the signal-to-noise ratio as low as possible is vital to one party in particular for their own survival. What a sad system.

So, is the guy the greatest President ever? Don't know. Don't think so. FDR was more bold in dealing with crises, but I have to wonder how different the climate he faced then was. I think there was a little less "Eff you I've got mine"/"Pull the ladder up, I'm alright" mentality then. But that's merely a guess.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!



If you're talking about President Obama winning a second term, yeah. It shouldn't be that hard, either.


----------



## Jed (13 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Saying the USA is "exactly the same" is patently false. Tell that people who finally have health insurance. Tell that to gays who now can serve in the military without their career being ended on account of who they are. (If you don't think that's significant, look at the stats on how many people were kicked out under DADT - linguists, intelligence analysts, pilots - people in whom massive amounts of money had been invested). Tell that to 11 million children (4 million of whom were uninsured) who got health insurance when President Obama signed a bill getting them coverage. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of Americans who worked in the auto industry or have jobs tied to it - that's small business people in towns all over America.
> 
> 
> So, is the guy the greatest President ever? Don't know. Don't think so. FDR was more bold in dealing with crises, but I have to wonder how different the climate he faced then was. I think there was a little less "Eff you I've got mine"/"Pull the ladder up, I'm alright" mentality then. But that's merely a guess.



Holy cow, talk about non sequitor, Batman! These comments of yours some how imply that the DADT policy previously followed by the US military was entirely responsible for any number of just and unjust terfing out of various individuals of their Armed Services and that the day was saved by the Magnificent Rainbow Warrior Commander in Chief, himself, President Barack Obama. What a stretch that is.

Then you go on to imply many other great things were accomplished, ranging from medically saving 4 million children and hundred's of thousands of Auto workers. You also equate all of those Auto sector union workers as small business in America.

Wow! Hail the Chief!


----------



## Redeye (13 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Holy cow, talk about non sequitor, Batman! These comments of yours some how imply that the DADT policy previously followed by the US military was entirely responsible for any number of just and unjust terfing out of various individuals of their Armed Services and that the day was saved by the Magnificent Rainbow Warrior Commander in Chief, himself, President Barack Obama. What a stretch that is.



President Obama could have ended DADT by executive order without much trouble. Lots of people were angry he didn't right away. However, by making sure it was done by an Act of Congress ensure that it can't easily be undone. Well played by him. Thirteen thousand people who volunteered to serve and defend their country were fired under DADT for nothing more than who they are, by the way.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Then you go on to imply many other great things were accomplished, ranging from medically saving 4 million children and hundred's of thousands of Auto workers. You also equate all of those Auto sector union workers as small business in America.



I didn't imply anything about kids. I said it outright. Here's one link on it: http://themiddleclass.org/bill/children039s-health-insurance-program-reauthorization-act-2009

Nor did I equate auto sector workers with small business. However, saving the auto industry saved lots of small businesses too. Why? Because depending on which study you look at, each auto sector job supported something like 5-7 jobs in their communities. That's restaurants, coffee shops, all sorts of other businesses. When a major employer in a town disappears, it's not just the people who work there that suffer. The income they lose was money that was often spent in their communities, so the businesses that depended on that spending also fail. That's economics 101, something called "the multiplier".


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Feb 2012)

If  were eligible to vote in the US election:


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2012)

I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation.

Obama had little to do with creating the crisis, beyond advocating many of the policies that precipitated it; he had less to so with the solutions, such as they have been.

The record, as I understand it - and my perception may be wrong, is that both the Bush White House and the Democratic Congress opposed bailouts and were looking for almost anything to avoid bailouts. It was Henry Paulson and, mainly Ben Bernanke, an expert on the causes and effects of the _Great Depression_, who, literally, frightened the living shit out of Bush, Pelozi, Dodd, Frank _et al_; frightened them into shoveling money, lots of money, heaps of money and then even more money into anything and everything that looked like it might restore _credit_. Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan, because Bernanke is the smartest guy in the room - by a long shot. Political Washington, led by Obama, is about 99% intellectual and moral lightweights - and that includes Obama, in both categories; he's no FDR, he's certainly not a Truman nor an Eisenhower nor even a Carter or Reagan; he's probably on an intellectual and moral level with Kennedy, which is to say down near the bottom of the heap.


----------



## Redeye (13 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation.
> 
> Obama had little to do with creating the crisis, beyond advocating many of the policies that precipitated it; he had less to so with the solutions, such as they have been.
> 
> The record, as I understand it - and my perception may be wrong, is that both the Bush White House and the Democratic Congress opposed bailouts and were looking for almost anything to avoid bailouts. It was Henry Paulson and, mainly Ben Bernanke, an expert on the causes and effects of the _Great Depression_, who, literally, frightened the living crap out of Bush, Pelozi, Dodd, Frank _et al_; frightened them into shoveling money, lots of money, heaps of money and then even more money into anything and everything that looked like it might restore _credit_. Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan, because Bernanke is the smartest guy in the room - by a long shot. Political Washington, led by Obama, is about 99% intellectual and moral lightweights - and that includes Obama, in both categories; he's no FDR, he's certainly not a Truman nor an Eisenhower nor even a Carter or Reagan; he's probably on an intellectual and moral level with Kennedy, which is to say down near the bottom of the heap.



If you're referring to TARP, you can't give him any credit or blame for it. It happened before he was elected.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If you're referring to TARP, you can't give him any credit or blame for it. It happened before he was elected.




I'm talking about everything, TARP, the auto sector bailouts, the fumbled recovery, no budgets, and, and, and ... Obama is a lightweight but so are almost all his Washington colleagues and the few who aren't are hamstrung by the _system_, a system which Obama likes because it serves his partisan political purposes even as it damages his country and the American people. He's not the worst US president (think e.g. Harding and Buchanan), he's just a well below average one.


----------



## Haletown (13 Feb 2012)

TARP was Bush

This notion that Obama bailed out/saved the US auto industry is DNC propaganda.

Honda didn't need bailing out.
Ford didn't need bailing out.
Hyundai didn't need bailing out.
Toyota didn't need bailing out.
Mazda didn't need bailing out.

Obama used tax payer funds to bail out the UAW pension fund - and in the process screwed over the GM bond holders - because he owed the UAW and their Big Brother AFL CIO buddies for funding so much of his election.

GM should have been chapter 11'd but his UAW buds wouldn't have walked away with trunks full of cash.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2012)

More on how things look on the ground:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_781090.html#



> *Pennsylvania tall order for Obama*
> By Salena Zito
> PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
> Sunday, February 12, 2012
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> HuffPo isn't the source I'm citing. It's the source of the surface quoted stat, which I then provided the sources for, in detail. When you can refute them all (and they use a vast swath of surveys and research studies), come on back.



This survey indicates that a lot of catholics dont actually go to church, and that a lot of catholics use birth control.  One could interpolate that a good percentage of those surveyed are catholic, as in:

Person 1- What is your religion?
Person 2- uhhhhhhh, catholic I guess.

ie- they are catholic but dont actually attend church.  Either way, the survey, from what I read, doesn't state what % of those surveyed are actually fully practicing catholics. 

Regardless, it doesn't matter because it doesn't really address the original idea that the problem with the whole thing is that it is forcing an independent organization, with it's own set of ideals, to submit to the state.  So what if a catholic hospital doesn't want to issue birth control? If you work there, there are other options for getting it, and I would hazard to guess that anyone working in this environment was well aware of this prior to accepting the job.  By accepting, therin, they  accepted that they would not receive birth control.  Soooo, I guess if you want to work in a catholic hospital and want birth control, go buy it yourself... or condoms.... or whatever.  

Why contraceptive coverage is mandated is beyond me anyways... in the US, Canada, or wherever.  That's a personal choice that should be made, and paid for, by the person, not the state.

You are quite right that the POTUS cannot put forward legislation.  Therein, if he cannot actually make laws, unless through an executive order.  

In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.

Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all.  

On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.
> 
> Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all.
> 
> On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher



Very good summary Bird Gunner45; probably a pretty lucid sitrep on things.


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2012)

Romney may not have things as locked up as it is being portrayed.

First heard this story on the Rachael Maddow show last week, when she was interviewing one of Ron Paul's campaign managers.

It seems that Paul's plan of focusing caucus states may have a more nuanced aspect than people realized. Based on the way the caucuses work, they have a straw poll to select the candidate, followed by votes to select the actual delegates that will go to the national convention.

What has been happening typically is that after the vote for the candidate has been made, most people leave. Then those that remain will select the actual delegates. Ron Paul's supporters don't leave. They stay and circulate lists of names of Paul supporters and push to get their people selected as the delegates.

And the Paul campaign manager said that that was exactly what the were doing. And it was clear to everyone involved within the state GOP organization.

Today I read this in the Washington Post about the Maine Caucuses on Saturday. It clearly spells out what is happening, and the results may not be as clear cut as they are being made out. Romney's wins might not be wins after all. Although the Maine delgate selection results were thrown out, so sometimes it doesn't work as intended.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/maine-caucuses-provide-a-window-into-ron-paul-delegate-strategy/2012/02/12/gIQARNbC9Q_blog.html#pagebreak


----------



## Redeye (13 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This survey indicates that a lot of catholics dont actually go to church, and that a lot of catholics use birth control.  One could interpolate that a good percentage of those surveyed are catholic, as in:
> 
> Person 1- What is your religion?
> Person 2- uhhhhhhh, catholic I guess.
> ...



What's the relevance of that? If you're going to surmise that some proportion of them are what I think they now call "cafeteria Catholics" you're actually further undermining the argument that it's a big problem. I didn't go into the details of how the persons surveyed were found. I could, but I'm not really that worried about it. I'm sure the survey report will cover that if you're interested.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Regardless, it doesn't matter because it doesn't really address the original idea that the problem with the whole thing is that it is forcing an independent organization, with it's own set of ideals, to submit to the state.  So what if a catholic hospital doesn't want to issue birth control? If you work there, there are other options for getting it, and I would hazard to guess that anyone working in this environment was well aware of this prior to accepting the job.  By accepting, therin, they  accepted that they would not receive birth control.  Soooo, I guess if you want to work in a catholic hospital and want birth control, go buy it yourself... or condoms.... or whatever.



Oddly enough, a big chunk of Catholic hospitals and universities already covered birth control. So to them the point seems rather moot. The entire argument seems to be given that there whole thing seems more or less settled.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Why contraceptive coverage is mandated is beyond me anyways... in the US, Canada, or wherever.  That's a personal choice that should be made, and paid for, by the person, not the state.



I'd venture to guess that it's a policy decision that unplanned pregnancies are not in the interest in the state. It's an almost universal decision anyhow.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In spite of the examples you site, including gays in the military, the United States is not existentially different than it was 4 years ago.  The war in Iraq has ended, though it likely would have ended had McCain won too due to public opinion.  Guantanamo is still open, A-Stan is still ongoing, Iran/N Korea remain threats (though marginal at best), and the US is $4 trillion more in debt... THAT is all Obama, as the president he proposes the budget.  So, those children with medical coverage will now get to bear the burden of the incredible debt load that they are left with.



I'll go one better and say President Obama doesn't really deserve any credit for the end of Iraq, because the wheels for that were already in motion before he was elected. There's talk now that an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan is something of interest, I wonder how assessments of how successful the training of the ANSF is will influence that. I'm about to head over on Op ATTENTION and I'll be interested to see what's been accomplished by Roto 0 and what we'll manage to accomplish. Gitmo pisses off a lot of his base, I understand the problem though - they need some way to dispose of those incarcerated there. They essentially created themselves a big mess that isn't easy to get out of.

North Korea is too broke to be a threat, in fact, the biggest threat of it would be its collapse and how China and South Korea would react. Neither wants the burden of a massive stream of refugees, I suspect that's the reason China props them up and ROK tolerates their antics. Iran isn't much of a threat, but the bluster from the right about them (including the absolutely insane idea of military action against them) is like poking a bear. It's rich to hear a party that goes on about the nation's balance sheet talk about launching yet another war when they didn't pay for their last two.

To suggest that that massive national debt is the product of one single president is frankly ludicrous. The USA has lived beyond its means for a long time, and it's a failure of the whole system of governance there that they don't seem to be able to make much headway on the problem. Both sides of the aisle bear responsibility for that. When the GOP's approach is the failed idea of just handing out more tax cuts, and the Democrats aren't willing to talk about entitlements, it's hard to make any headway. Neither side is likely to make the first move, either. I don't know what the easy solution to that is, there really isn't one I suspect.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Obama will likely win, I agree.  Though he is a flip flopper (once said marriage was between a man and woman, uses his religion when it's convenient, etc) and a C+ president at best, his opponents seem willing to let him take 4 more.  Beating the competition isn't always an indication that what you've done is actually good.... the US did re-elect Bush after all.



When did he flip flop on marriage? He's never said anything but that - he just doesn't think it's worth fighting over, and perhaps accepts that marriage equality is to some degree inevitable. As for religion, it's funny that he was attacked about the preacher of the Christian church he attended during the Democratic primary, but then after elected, the "Sekrit Kenyan Muslim Marxist" nonsense started up from the tinfoil hat fringe of the right. It's unfortunate that his religious inclinations are an issue at all. Likewise, it's sure to come up if Romney is nominated that he's a Mormon, and Santorum may well get attacked for being a Catholic, as happened to JFK. What one believes in that sense should be their own business. C+ is a fair assessment. I doubt anyone could have done much better with the state of affairs currently. As I've said repeatedly, what will really matter is the Congressional elections. I suspect a lot of incumbents will be looking for new jobs in 2013, I'm not sure what the composition will be, but that will determine what President Obama's next term looks like.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> On a final note- please explain economics to me... my MBA and I could use a refresher



You weren't the one who didn't understand the multiplier. Out of respect, I'll make no comment on my opinion of the MBA. I'm sure you've seen the FedEx commercial. They do vary wildly in quality, though, so I'll make no judgements.


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2012)

There are plenty of errors and inconsistencies in both of your arguments. I'll save further derailment and not point them out.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2012)

TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2012)

Romney in a death spiral?



> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/a-romney-death-spiral.html
> 
> A friend notes Romney's declining appeal to moderates in recent polls:
> 
> ...



Or Romney the Conservative Figurehead





> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html
> 
> The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.



TARP was based on a strategy that had worked in the past, in Sweden. It was projected to break even, or even possibly be net-positive. However, it creates a moral hazard problem potentially without some manner of reform to prevent the same problems happening again. ARRA you're bang on about. Conceptually the idea of a stimulus can work - IF the money is spent on things that are ultimately useful to enhancing productivity and setting conditions for future, sustainable growth. Plugging budget holes won't do that.

The US has a lot of crumbling infrastructure, the rebuilding of which (at a cost of something like $3.5bil) could be a huge trigger for growth. However, I don't think the GOP would go for it, and I don't think the Dems have the stomach to even present it as an idea. And they'd all be right to be skeptical of how to ensure it's used to good effect.


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Romney in a death spiral?
> 
> Or Romney the Conservative Figurehead



As it's frequently joked about, which Romney?

The progressive Republican Romney? Or the "severely conservative" Romney?


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> TARP was not a particularly bad program, if you look at the net fiscal balance.  The problem with TARP is that having served its purpose, it was just too nice a cashbox to be shut down.  ARRA was a cluster.  Too much money was spent padding out civil service payroll shortfalls and not enough on actual GNP-enhancing programs.  A payroll pave-over is OK if the pothole is small; it turned out the pothole is too damn big.



Don't forget: TARP was part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and The Economic Stimulus Act were two other measures brought in at the same time. But they were 3 distinct and separate pieces of legislation. Unfortunately everyone lumps them all into one pile.

They all had good points and bad points. But I'd agree that TARP was the most successful of all the measures taken. 

Agreed, ARRA was a clusterflop. Too little money put into infrastructure, and everyone expected instant results from a process that takes many months or years to realize results. The money put into saving education and public safety jobs could be argued as having saved many jobs and prevented higher unemployment numbers, but in reality may have only delayed the inevitable.

The Stimulus itself was nice for the average taxpayer, but as many pointed out when they brought it in, most of the money doled out would end up either in savings, or paying down personal debt, not going back into the economy.

But the biggest point that many miss is that this all was put in place before the 2008 election. However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Don't forget: TARP was part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and The Economic Stimulus Act were two other measures brought in at the same time. But they were 3 distinct and separate pieces of legislation. Unfortunately everyone lumps them all into one pile.
> 
> They all had good points and bad points. But I'd agree that TARP was the most successful of all the measures taken.
> 
> ...




Which is why I said, up near the top of this page, _'I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation"_ and _'Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan."_


----------



## Haletown (14 Feb 2012)

Let's give Obama credit where credit his due him . . . .  in his own numbers.

"Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00."



He'll be bragging about this accomplishment on the election trial, right ?  

Because he said in his inaugural address that in addition to healing the planet and  stopping the rise of the oceans, he would cut the deficit in half.  Maybe arithmetic is not his strength.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2012)

"However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit."

Think of it as a counterweight to the pro-Obama cohort, which has yet to admit any mistakes after 3 years and routinely passes the blame.  We can teach 18 year-olds to seek and accept responsibility, but a middle-aged man with an advanced degree from a prestigious university and his counsellors and enablers of often superior pedigree can not find it in themselves to do so with arguably the most prestigious and powerful appointment in the non-religious world.


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Which is why I said, up near the top of this page, _'I think we are giving President Obama too much credit and too much blame for the bailouts and the subsequent stagnation"_ and _'Obama just carried on, following the Bernanke plan."_



Your present self excepted of course. ;D

I did note that your previous post were a rational light in a static filled darkness that we had spiraled into. :nod:


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "However through the revisionist looking glass of the anti-Obama cohort, He carries all of the blame and none of the credit."
> 
> Think of it as a counterweight to the pro-Obama cohort, which has yet to admit any mistakes after 3 years and routinely passes the blame.  We can teach 18 year-olds to seek and accept responsibility, but a middle-aged man with an advanced degree from a prestigious university and his counsellors and enablers of often superior pedigree can not find it in themselves to do so with arguably the most prestigious and powerful appointment in the non-religious world.



But when education said 18 year old we don't have to deal with an obstructionist congress bent on making Obama a one term president, no matter what the cost to the country, or their own reelection possibilities.


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But when education said 18 year old we don't have to deal with an obstructionist congress bent on making Obama a one term president, no matter what the cost to the country, or their own reelection possibilities.



What's most sad about the entire mess the US is in is just this. the GOP doesn't care about the country or what's best for it. They're more interested in trying to defeat President Obama. Would that (if they could pull it off) be classed as a Pyrrhic victory?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What's most sad about the entire mess the US is in is just this. the GOP doesn't care about the country or what's best for it. They're more interested in trying to defeat President Obama. Would that (if they could pull it off) be classed as a Pyrrhic victory?



I think you meant that GOP and Democrats, as neither side seems capable of reasonable debate, compromise, or otherwise adult like behaviour.


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think you meant that GOP and Democrats, as neither side seems capable of reasonable debate, compromise, or otherwise adult like behaviour.



Very much agreed. Dems are no better than the GOP with the gamesmanship.

It's very telling that a lot of veteran moderates on both sides are opting not to run again this time around.

Apparently "Spending more time with the Family" is code for "I'm tired of the petty partisan bickering and all or nothing politics we have degenerated into."


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I think you meant that GOP and Democrats, as neither side seems capable of reasonable debate, compromise, or otherwise adult like behaviour.



To a great extent I can't disagree with that. But it certainly seems to me that Dems are interested in somehow finding a way to make things work, the GOP are committed to obstruction. That said, that could easily flipflop.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Feb 2012)

Redeye for a smart guy its hard to see how you can miss the destruction the democrats are causing to the economy. Just their energy policy alone is pushing gas prices toward $5 a gallon gas. It is anti-fossil fuel at its core. Their green agenda isnt competitive unless energy prices go through the roof,and you cant power cars with solar powers.Those electric cars you read about require electricity and what kind of power plants do we have ? Natural gas.coal and nuclear.West Virginia this month shutdown 3 power plants because of new EPA requirements. We have run annual trillion dollar deficits under the democrats and the only area they want to cut is defense and not entitlement programs.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Redeye for a smart guy its hard to see how you can miss the destruction the democrats are causing to the economy. Just their energy policy alone is pushing gas prices toward $5 a gallon gas. It is anti-fossil fuel at its core. Their green agenda isnt competitive unless energy prices go through the roof,and you cant power cars with solar powers.Those electric cars you read about require electricity and what kind of power plants do we have ? Natural gas.coal and nuclear.West Virginia this month shutdown 3 power plants because of new EPA requirements. We have run annual trillion dollar deficits under the democrats and the only area they want to cut is defense and not entitlement programs.



If you think anyone in the US government can simply wave a magic wand and reduce gas prices, you're frankly crazy.

Gas prices are driven by global events. US policy impact on them is minimal. Things like the situation in Iran and that region drive crude prices up. Of course current policy somewhat anti-fossil fuel, the idea is to find ways to prepare for those fuels becoming more and more scarce, never mind environmentally problematic, and find other forms of energy to move forward with. There's some progress lately, the first licenses and loan guarantees were issued for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Keystone XL will likely be built, but on the Dems' terms, not when the GOP tries to ram it through with unrelated issues.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Keystone XL will likely be built, but on the Dems' terms, not when the GOP tries to ram it through with unrelated issues.



They're gonna let the GOP put Keystone into another bill so they can wash their hands of it and appease the Eco-Left. The US needs the money and the jobs, but Obama is too concerned about getting and holding votes to actually let it happen without the GOP ramming it through as you say.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Feb 2012)

All Obama has to do is to get prices down is to approve the oil pipeline and reopen oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.He needs to reverse the EPA's recent rulings.This would be a signal that the US is determined to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.This is as much a national security issue as it is energy.


----------



## ballz (15 Feb 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> but Obama is too concerned about getting and holding votes



Damn, in a democracy??? ;D

Sorry, I have no dog in this fight (well, I guess I do support the Keystone pipeline) but that comment just struck me as rather ironic. Being concerned with getting and holding votes is, of course, the whole point of democracy... If President Obama is at the mercy of the people (well, at least your statement makes it seem that way) it's a sign that it is working as it is supposed to (which I'm not sure that's the case, the US democratic system seems to have hamstrung itself to me).


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Damn, in a democracy??? ;D
> 
> Sorry, I have no dog in this fight (well, I guess I do support the Keystone pipeline) but that comment just struck me as rather ironic. Being concerned with getting and holding votes is, of course, the whole point of democracy... If President Obama is at the mercy of the people (well, at least your statement makes it seem that way) it's a sign that it is working as it is supposed to (which I'm not sure that's the case, the US democratic system seems to have hamstrung itself to me).



Democracy isnt perfect but somehow we have muddled through good leaders and bad.Make no mistake history wont be kind to President Obama.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All Obama has to do is to get prices down is to approve the oil pipeline and reopen oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.He needs to reverse the EPA's recent rulings.This would be a signal that the US is determined to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.This is as much a national security issue as it is energy.



And it will do pretty much nothing to gas prices at all. And without finding alternatives and thus reducing dependence on oil period, there's going to be no change of that energy independence for the USA. That's the whole point.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

Somewhat a propos of that, this is pretty fascinating:

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/15/secret-clean-energy-stash-discovered-in-oceans/

Don't know how close it is to reality (I'd suspect transmission is the biggest problem that hasn't even been looked at), but a baseload source of energy like this would be incredible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Feb 2012)

I dont see anything changing the need for fossil fuels to operate our vehicles,planes and ships. The technology that TV has cited isnt going to help us generate cheap electricity anytime soon.I am a fan of hydrogen but we cant produce it cheaply.Meanwhile between the US and Canada we have more oil than anyone else.The US has the ability to be energy self sufficent for a 100 years.That should be anough time to make hydrogen or OTEC viable.Who knows maybe fossil fuels are a renewable resource.The ocean seems to have huge quantities of methane as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubbling-surface-arctic-ocean-163804179.html


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont see anything changing the need for fossil fuels to operate our vehicles,planes and ships. The technology that TV has cited isnt going to help us generate cheap electricity anytime soon.I am a fan of hydrogen but we cant produce it cheaply.Meanwhile between the US and Canada we have more oil than anyone else.The US has the ability to be energy self sufficent for a 100 years.That should be anough time to make hydrogen or OTEC viable.Who knows maybe fossil fuels are a renewable resource.The ocean seems to have huge quantities of methane as well.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubbling-surface-arctic-ocean-163804179.html



Studies are being done on synthetic/biofuels that are looking promising. The economies of scale aren't there yet, but they may well in the none-to-distant future.

Again, returning to the original point, no one in the US government has any power to wave any magic wand and lower gas prices. It's that simple.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Studies are being done on synthetic/biofuels that are looking promising. The economies of scale aren't there yet, but they may well in the none-to-distant future.
> 
> Again, returning to the original point, no one in the US government has any power to wave any magic wand and lower gas prices. It's that simple.



Perhaps, but we don't need to divert increasing amounts of arable land to biofuel crops while concurrently driving up food prices.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Feb 2012)

Is it just me, or is it the height of first-world arrogance to grow food so that we can use it as "biofuel" when half of the planet is starving?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Damn, in a democracy??? ;D
> 
> Sorry, I have no dog in this fight (well, I guess I do support the Keystone pipeline) but that comment just struck me as rather ironic. Being concerned with getting and holding votes is, of course, the whole point of democracy... If President Obama is at the mercy of the people (well, at least your statement makes it seem that way) it's a sign that it is working as it is supposed to (which I'm not sure that's the case, the US democratic system seems to have hamstrung itself to me).



He's just like Dalton McGuinity in Ontario, he'll do whatever he can do for whatever vocal special-interest stands up in order to get himself some votes. Regardless whether it sinks the country into massive debt or makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Feb 2012)

As an aside about democracy in general, the root problem with it is that the leaders don't do things that are necessarily for the right reason: they do it for votes.  I mean, "for the will of the people" is one thing, and "for the right reason" may be literally exclusive.  It may be the reason why many democracies are in the mess they are in right now.  

The analogy is a family unit.  Imagine that there are five kids, a mother and a father.  The kids, all under ten, have equal voting rights to mom and dad.  If that's the case, then we can forego any payments on the mortgage, and we're hiring someone to do our homework for us, and we're eating pizza and McDonalds for supper every night.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Imagine that there are five kids, a mother and a father.


Who in their right mind would have _five_ kids? What are they, Catholic?

 ;D

[/mindless derail]


----------



## GAP (15 Feb 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Who in their right mind would have _five_ kids? What are they, Catholic?
> 
> ;D
> 
> [/mindless derail]



Think cold winters.....Catholic or not, the exercise is great....... ;D


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but we don't need to divert increasing amounts of arable land to biofuel crops while concurrently driving up food prices.



No. Which is the interesting part. Some of the more fascinating studies don't require that. Burning food isn't a good idea. There's studies into things like algae-based fuels that will prevent that being necessary. More interesting are ideas about using byproducts of good production. People are studying all sorts of angles.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As an aside about democracy in general, the root problem with it is that the leaders don't do things that are necessarily for the right reason: they do it for votes.  I mean, "for the will of the people" is one thing, and "for the right reason" may be literally exclusive.  It may be the reason why many democracies are in the mess they are in right now.



Like Greece or any other PIIGS? Pretty much. Voters are fickle and don't generally think long term, they think for themselves right now. Even worse, they don't think at all, don't know much about what they're voting about, and don't really care. What was it Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."? Something like that.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> The analogy is a family unit.  Imagine that there are five kids, a mother and a father.  The kids, all under ten, have equal voting rights to mom and dad.  If that's the case, then we can forego any payments on the mortgage, and we're hiring someone to do our homework for us, and we're eating pizza and McDonalds for supper every night.



The problem with that analogy is that the parents can't be assumed, necessarily, to know any better than the kids.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The problem with that analogy is that the parents can't be assumed, necessarily, to know any better than the kids.



Most of the time I think you spout totally useless phrases and arguements but when you're right,...you're really right.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Feb 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Who in their right mind would have _five_ kids? What are they, Catholic?
> 
> ;D
> 
> [/mindless derail]




Maybe   ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Feb 2012)

EDIT:


In my analogy, assume (for sake of argument) that the parents know what's best for the family, and that the children are 8 years of age, and fairly normal kids who don't have a great grasp of long-term effects.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, they can.  They are the parents, FFS.  And you know the analogy fits.
> 
> [tangent]  I get it.  There are parents out there who are right out of it.  But my analogy fits, _for argument sake_.



it's not a bad analogy, TV - I agree. I'm just highlighting that it doesn't perfectly encapsulate the problem, that's all.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Feb 2012)

Sorry guys, but enjoying unprotected sex does not make morons, thiefs, dirtbags, rapists and general all-around assholes any smarter or more responsible.................we would just like to think it does.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2012)

Another potential issue for the electorate to ponder. Once again, the issue is there for the taking, how it is presented and framed will be...interesting to watch:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/02/14/millions-of-dead-voters-brought-to-you-by-eric-holder/?print=1



> *Millions of Dead Voters, Brought to You By Eric Holder*
> Posted By J. Christian Adams On February 14, 2012 @ 6:40 pm In Uncategorized | 36 Comments
> 
> Over a year ago, I first warned that the Obama administration adopted a policy of refusing to enforce federal laws which require states to purge dead and ineligible voters from the rolls. I discuss at length the details of this policy as revealed to me when I worked at the Justice Department in my book Injustice. Today we learn that American voter rolls are infested with millions of dead and ineligible voters heading into the presidential election.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If you think anyone in the US government can simply wave a magic wand and reduce gas prices, you're frankly crazy.



George W Bush obviously had a magic wand:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/thanks-to-obama-gas-jumps-in-a-flash/?print=1



> - PJ Media - http://pjmedia.com -Click here to print.
> Thanks to Obama, Gas Jumps in a Flash
> Posted By Will Collier On April 26, 2011 @ 12:00 am In "Green" tech,economy,Politics,Science & Technology,US News | 127 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another potential issue for the electorate to ponder. Once again, the issue is there for the taking, how it is presented and framed will be...interesting to watch:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/02/14/millions-of-dead-voters-brought-to-you-by-eric-holder/?print=1



I'll counter your obviously partisan article with something that give a more fair assessment of the situation, and spoiler alert, it has nothing to do with Eric Holder and other Obama Conspiracy Theories. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote


----------



## cupper (15 Feb 2012)

And with respect to the high price of gas, here's an article that may make you think.

The basic premise is how all things are interconnected, but the part I found very interesting is how the high price of corn is effecting the California almond crop.

What does this have to do with gas prices? Well, corn prices are being driven by the demand for corn based ethanol, which is mandated by Congress to be blended with gas. Perhaps we need to push harder for commercial development of cellulose based ethanol.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Feb 2012)

When Obama became Prez gas prices were $1.60ish and uneployment was around 7%.Today they are over $4 a gallon in many parts of the country.Unemployment in real terms is 14%. People tend to vote their pocket books. It boils down to this "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago ?"


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Feb 2012)

Add the increase in home foreclosures. Estimated one million more home foreclosures in 2012.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2012)

And the Obama Administration's economic record in a single, easy to use graph:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2012)

Hmm, it looks like one of those graphs that "prove" global warming...............


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2012)

The difference, of course, is the data is freely available to anyone who wants to crunch the numbers and arrive at the result themselves.



> The above chart shows the “labor force participation rate.” This statistic represents the share of working-age Americans who are either employed or unemployed but looking for work. It is not a pretty picture. Only 63.7% of working-age Americans are currently in the workforce – the lowest in almost 29 years!
> 
> To put it another way, 36.3% of working-age Americans do not have a job and are not even looking.


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2012)

Besides, the fact that this graph was posted by the Republican Study Committee....



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The difference, of course, is the data is freely available to anyone who wants to crunch the numbers and arrive at the result themselves.



"To put it another way, 36.3% of working-age Americans do not have a job and are not even looking."

Please tell me you don't believe that the "true unemployment rate" is 36.3% like this graph is suggesting?


----------



## cupper (16 Feb 2012)

D'oh! :facepalm:


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Feb 2012)

I'd sooner believe the Republican info than the democrats.When you have the President lying about his record and the media not doing its job by fact checking the administration's press statements,not to mention running phony polls you would think we were covering a Russian election.


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2012)

It's not their "info" that needs to be questioned, it's their method of delivery. Clearly, the way the statistics are presented on this graph is to manipulate the person interpreting into thinking it means something it doesn't (in other words, that the true unemployment rate is 36.3%).

It's biased presentations of data like this that lead to people dismissing any statistic as "lies, damn lies, and statistics," and makes it that much harder for all of us.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm still waiting to see Thucyclides answer, if he actually believes that, before I actually point out one (of many) huge gaping hole in this stupid graph.


----------



## Redeye (16 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's not their "info" that needs to be questioned, it's their method of delivery. Clearly, the way the statistics are presented on this graph is to manipulate the person interpreting into thinking it means something it doesn't (in other words, that the true unemployment rate is 36.3%).
> 
> It's biased presentations of data like this that lead to people dismissing any statistic as "lies, damn lies, and statistics," and makes it that much harder for all of us.
> 
> EDIT: Just for the record, I'm still waiting to see Thucyclides answer, if he actually believes that, before I actually point out one (of many) huge gaping hole in this stupid graph.



I wouldn't hold your breath. Thucyclides doesn't actually engage in debate. He throws out stuff like this and thinks it ends debate, unfortunately.

You're right about how these sorts of presentations influence things. But that's the modus operandi - shift the debate from issues to nonsense. It's nothing new at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2012)

The huge gaping hole is in the percentage of the work force actively working or seeking work.  I haven't read any refutations of that, yet.


----------



## rifleman (18 Feb 2012)

It looks like they perhaps have to get those freeloading kids and seniors pulling their weight by getting jobs then ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2012)

As long as the criteria for selecting who is in the work force haven't changed, the comparison of percentages from year to year is valid.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As long as the criteria for selecting who is in the work force haven't changed, the comparison of percentages from year to year is valid.



Somewhat. That graph has zoomed in on the Y-axis (not the first time Thucyclides has posted a graph that's zoomed in on one axis, which serves to dramatize the up's and down's). The comparison from year to year isn't dramatic at all. From the time of the stimulus, the percentage has changed by *at most* 2%.

Why has it changed by 2%? I don't know. Some of it may be unemployment, some of it may be more people going on welfare... Some of it may also be from the trend that happened in 2008 of more people deciding during the recession to go back to post-secondary schools, or stay in post-secondary schools for longer (to get their Master's instead of trying to get a job with Bachelor's and no experience), etc.

*One* (there are more, this is just an obvious one that stuck out to me) of the huge gaping holes in that 36.3% (I'll say it since Thucyclides has no interest in answering the mail on this graph) is students, who don't count as "participating in the labour force" and they aren't considered unemployed. I don't know how many people in the US are students, but some of the info I have found is that 36.1% of 20-24 year olds in the US are taking post-secondary schooling. There are around 20 million Americans in that age group, so that's around *7.22 million* 20-24 year olds that this statement

"To put it another way, 36.3% of working-age Americans do not have a job and are not even looking."

suggests are part of the true unemployment rate.



So forgive me for hesitating to believe partisan statistics and graphs. :

EDIT: To add sources

36.1% comes from here http://www.cli-ica.ca/en/about/about-cli/indicators/know-pse.aspx
~20 million 20-24 year olds came from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2012)

If anyone is interested in looking at unbiased numbers to inform themselves, personally I'd look at the U6 unemployment rate. To me, it's as close to the "true" unemployment rate as I've been able to find.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

I don't have any dog in this fight, but that graph would suggest that things are slowly improving since the huge spike during the 2008 recession.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Please tell me you don't believe that the "true unemployment rate" is 36.3% like this graph is suggesting?



No, that is the percentage of Americans of working age who are not looking for work. The unemployment rate (looking for work and unemployed but no longer working) is known as U3 and is a bit over 11%. Only by subtracting the unemployed who are no longer looking fo we get the 8.3% rate being publicly presented as the unemployment rate.


----------



## Redeye (18 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No, that is the percentage of Americans of working age who are not looking for work. The unemployment rate (looking for work and unemployed but no longer working) is known as U3 and is a bit over 11%. Only by subtracting the unemployed who are no longer looking fo we get the 8.3% rate being publicly presented as the unemployment rate.



Which consistently uses the same metric in order to allow for comparisons.   :facepalm:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2012)

"Zooming in" is reasonable.  For that number, a one percentage point change represents a dramatic swing.  It's not as if the graph becomes more meaningful if you display it from 0 to 100.  Some number well above zero would represent a catastrophic threshold.

The  misleading par is the y-axis: "Percentage of Americans in the labour force".  That percentage is bound to change due to demographic shifts.  For example, the percentage of Americans in the labour force should have been highest during periods of low unemployment while the boomers were in their prime.  It needs to be something like "percentage of Americans in peak working years (say, 20-65) in the labour force".


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2012)

The _Partisan_ and _Biased_ CBO comes up with similar figures:

http://news.investors.com/articleprint/601660/201202171842/obama-jobless-rate-threatens-re-election.aspx



> *High Real Unemployment Data Reflect Poorly On Obama*
> 
> Posted 02/17/2012 06:42 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No, that is the percentage of Americans of working age who are not looking for work. The unemployment rate (looking for work and unemployed but no longer working) is known as U3 and is a bit over 11%. Only by subtracting the unemployed who are no longer looking fo we get the 8.3% rate being publicly presented as the unemployment rate.



The 8.3% is the U3 rate. 

The U3 unemployment rate is the "official" unemployment rate that gets shown all the time. I think you're trying to say the U4 rate (U3 plus those who've given up looking) is 11% (it's 9.9 according to what I'm looking at). http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/alt-measures/

Like I said, in my opinion the U6 is the closest to "true." No matter what rate you choose, the trend in the unemployment rate is that it's decreasing.

So what was the point in posting that horrendously partisan graph about how "grim" everything is if... you know what, nevermind...

EDIT:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The _Partisan_ and _Biased_



Please... you're killing me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2012)

For the moment, at least, everything is coming up roses for President Obama:

1. The economy, by most measures, is *somewhat* better ~ maybe there's "light at the end of the tunnel" or something like that, in any event Americans are starting to breathe a little easier, for now, anyway; and

2. The Republican contenders look like clowns.

If the election was on 6 March 2012 it would look like Obama in a walk ... but it's on 6 November 2012 and a lot can happen between now and then.


----------



## exabedtech (18 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For the moment, at least, everything is coming up roses for President Obama:
> 
> 1. The economy, by most measures, is *somewhat* better ~ maybe there's "light at the end of the tunnel" or something like that, in any event Americans are starting to breathe a little easier, for now, anyway; and
> 
> ...



When we're talking about the same country that re-elected Bush, nothing, no matter how far fetched, illogical or just plain ridiculous is out of the question.
Maybe someone here sees a competent leader who can manage the mess they are in.  Not sure that I do.  Not expecting them to find a guy who can get them out of the hole they've dug, just hopeful that they can find someone who'll get everyone to agree to quit digging.  
As long as partisan politics are ruling the day, the US will continue to be a mess.  The big hope with Obama was and end to exactly that.  :2c:


----------



## Redeye (18 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For the moment, at least, everything is coming up roses for President Obama:
> 
> 1. The economy, by most measures, is *somewhat* better ~ maybe there's "light at the end of the tunnel" or something like that, in any event Americans are starting to breathe a little easier, for now, anyway; and
> 
> ...



A lot of numbers are looking good but it's merely the start of a very long road to climb out of. But the fact that the Republicans are seeming to fall over each other to look more nuts, and the ongoing dramatics are likely to be strongly in the favour of Democrats, because it'll push a lot of independents into their arms out of disgust with the ongoing nonsense about contraception - and frankly, that gets more and more ridiculous by the day. You would think that if the GOP wanted to be serious contenders in November they'd be looking to court those moderates, not alienate them. I don't get what their "strategy" is at all.


----------



## cupper (18 Feb 2012)

The U-6 rate is questionable as well. I was listening to a discussion about which numbers more accurately depict the situation. One thing that one of the interviewees pointed out is that the higher numbers take in not only people filing unemployment claims but actively seeking work, it also includes aspects which really shouldn't be included, such as people in prison, people who have returned to school, people with disabilities who cannot work, and surprisingly, active duty military personnel.

But they also pointed out that no matter what number you use, increases or decreases in the actual numbers are real, and follow the same overall trending. So a drop in the U-3 rate will be reflected similarly in any other metric you choose (unless you deliberately choose a metric designed to not follow that trend).


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> The U-6 rate is questionable as well. I was listening to a discussion about which numbers more accurately depict the situation. One thing that one of the interviewees pointed out is that the higher numbers take in not only people filing unemployment claims but actively seeking work, it also includes aspects which really shouldn't be included, such as people in prison, people who have returned to school, people with disabilities who cannot work, and surprisingly, active duty military personnel.



My understanding of the U6 rate is that it does not include people in prison, people who have returned to school, people with disabilities, or active duty personnel because those people are not considered to be part of the labour force. They are part of that 36.3% in the graph Thucyclides posted, however.

From the link I posted earlier


> Below is the overview of these six measures.
> 
> U1:
> This is the proportion of the civilian labor force that has been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer. This unemployment rate measures workers who are chronically unemployed. During business-cycle expansions, this rate captures structural unemployment. However, during lengthy business-cycle contractions, this rate is also likely to include a significant amount of cyclical unemployment. U1 tends to be relatively small, in the range of 1-2 percent.
> ...



One thing that is worth doing is comparing the U1 to the others. This tells you what percentage of people from whatever rate you choose to use have been unemployed longer than 15 weeks. So an example would be if the U3 is 8.3 and the U1 is 4.3, then 4% of the unemployed have been unemployed for longer than 15 weeks.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2012)

Zing!


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2012)

Brilliant.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2012)




----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Feb 2012)

This sums up Obama's presidency nicely.


----------



## Haletown (19 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This sums up Obama's presidency nicely.



Most interesting that he campaigned on cutting the deficit - listen to his inaugural speech if you want a good laugh.

And yet his record is his record   . . . 36 months in office now, $5.3 Trillion in increased debt . . . the vast majority wasted on useless feel good stuff and paying off his base to buy votes/his second term.

Shame really, he could have been a contender.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Feb 2012)

yeah... you could put the same thing for Harper right now.  

the unfortunate part of the whole political process (US and Canadian) is that ridiculous unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) side issues such as gay marriage, abortion, contraception, Santorums/Romney's religion, Obama's birth place, etc will be what people merit their decisions on.  Obama is putting more debt in place for the next generation at a record pace, and not offering any real solutions to "important problems" such as Debt/Deficit reduction, how the clut of Gen X'ers retiring will be paid for without increasing debt, how to increase US manufacturing/sustainable economy, how to maintain US hegemony, and how to ensure that the union itself is maintained.

Obama said he disagrees with debt, and yet wracked it up like a 17 year old with a new credit card.  In my mind, that makes him either a liar or a hypocrite.  If this were a republican who was anti-gay and got caught playing footsy in a stall they'd be called on it.

Both sides are equally ridiculous in their lack of REAL vision, but it'd be nice if they were treated equally


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Feb 2012)

Pinocchio,  Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one Day. As they walk,  they come across a sign:

"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the  world."

"I am entering" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes  out and they ask her,
"Well, how'd ya do?
" First Place ," said Snow  White.

They continue walking and they see a sign:

"Contest for the  strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an  hour he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
" First Place ,"  answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"

They continue walking when they  see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?"
Pinocchio  says "this is mine."
Half an hour later, he returns with tears in his  eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.

"Who the heck is Barack Obama?" asked  Pinocchio.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Feb 2012)




----------



## Haletown (20 Feb 2012)

If I was running the RNC election campaign . . . .


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2012)

Santorum is proving that it's not about electability, but rather Anybody but Romney.

The man has some whacked out ideas.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> It's a tie:
> 
> Either
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Santorum is proving that it's not about electability, but rather Anybody but Romney.
> 
> The man has some whacked out ideas.


I read the first article on prenatal testing, and I found the headline misleading.
From the article:



> he was talking specifically about some, but not all, prenatal testing, and not about prenatal care in general. He said “there are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free"



So, in short, his position is clear: abortion is murder.  (It's a tenet of Catholic faith that life, human life, starts at conception.  I'm not expecting you to believe that, counter it, or whatever).  But given that position as a premise, and given that some prenatal screens are used to look for birth defects, some people will determine that they couldn't be bothered with a handicapped child, so they will abort the baby.  Which, I will point out, is perfectly legal in the USA (and elsewhere, including in Canada).  

But I would avoid calling someone's position "whacked out", when it's based on reason. You don't have to believe or agree with the premise that human life begins at conception, but I don't think it's "whacked out" to think so.


----------



## ballz (20 Feb 2012)

TV, I am with you on the abortion front. While I don't agree with it, I understand the argument and that people will see it differently, Santorum just happens to be on the other side of the fence.

But Santorum is also the one advocating the State's ability to ban contraception, and he's one of the most homophobic people in politics. When those Marines were caught urinating on corpses, Santorum decided it was perfect timing for "This is the reason gays shouldn't be in the military."

So while I can see the argument for abortion, the argument for banning contraception is simply a "my religion says its wrong so you should have to abide by it," much like a Muslim politician saying that the state should be able to ban people from eating bacon (that's why I brought Santorum up earlier). Santorum was actually arguing about how using contraception means that sex is "only for pleasure," which is apparently wrong. There are some issues that the state has no business in, eating bacon and contraception are both one of them.

The guy is a complete fanatic, and it's scary that in any modern country he could be a politician, let alone running for the leadership of one of two major parties.

Bill Maher said it best earlier today, "Unemployment is down, confidence is up, DOW 5,000 above Bush - or as Republicans put it, let's talk about gay people and abortion!"


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2012)

A rather sad commentary on today when you have to resort to "Kremlinology" to discover what is really going on in the economy (not just in the United States but globally as well; the PIIGS and China come to mind). One fo the vast advantages the West had over the "rest" was the relatively open and transparent systems that had been developed over the centuries. Broader access to reliable information makes decision making better, and since most things flow from chains of decisions based on the available information, having a chain based on accurate information makes the entire chain and end result stronger and more flexible and useful.

The efficient markets hypothesis an the local knowledge problem are subsets of this issue; markets react to the sum total of information so having markets move due to accurate information means resources are allocated "correctly" (i.e. where they generate a positive return on investment). Now watching how insiders and cronys move their money and resources around can and is being done, so the market still reacts, but more slowly and with displaced resources. Local knowledge of conditions is a feeting variable (which is why centralized control over large and complex systems is imposible), by denying even correct information about local variables then things fail all the way down the line:

http://pjmedia.com//instapundit/ (20 Feb 2012) 



> GAS PRICES ARE GOING UP, and Steve Hayward notes that it’s not because the economy is recovering, since demand for gasoline is actually dropping. Shipping demand isn’t good either.
> 
> Speaking of demand, I had dinner last night with a college friend who trades electricity, and he says he’s not seeing any sign of a recovery in his line of work — you’d expect a boost in electricity demand that he’s just not encountering. I wonder, if you were, say, an investor or a foreign intelligence service, what U.S. metrics would you look at to determine if the economy was really recovering, if you didn’t trust the official numbers?
> 
> ...



Expect hyped up numbers for the next nine months followed by an "unexpectedly" severe letdown after the election. Even candidates who are sincerely running on platforms of economic reform and cleaning up the mess of debts, crony capitalist contracts and bad regulations will discover the task is far harder than they ever imagined.


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2012)

The problem is that his argument essentially boils down to if can be used to justify abortion, then it should not be funded / covered. In fact many parents use the information from prenatal testing to make decisions and prepare for bringing a special needs child into the world. According to Sarah Palin, she debated deeply about her own child with downs syndrome, but finally was able to prepare herself and her family for the difficulties ahead.

I don't question Santorum's beliefs regarding abortion. I question his view that says we shouldn't be covering tests that could be used to justify something he doesn't believe in.

But the man does tend to be extreme in his ideas. 

The whole state education should be scrapped because it is anachronistic.

Women should not be in combat because all of the men will succumb to their chivalrous tendencies and protect the woman, rather than fight.

Sex should only be for procreation, and that birth control allows sex to be reduced to something pleasureful.


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2012)

And the problem is that extreme ideas can lead down a slippery slope to forcing women to undergo medically unnecessary procedures such as ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion.

And if you don't believe me, believe the current legislation that has recently passed in the House of Representatives for the State of Virginia, and is a lock to pass in the equally split State Senate, and will be signed by the Governor.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/17/the-birth-control-culture-war.html#body_text_7



> HB 462 Abortion; informed consent, shall undergo ultrasound imaging.
> 
> Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sythen (21 Feb 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6TcpfBHlbs&feature=relmfu

Little light hearted view on the American debt  Love Ray Stevens and happened upon this


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And the problem is that extreme ideas can lead down a slippery slope to forcing women to undergo medically unnecessary procedures such as ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion.



This is what I was saying... the conversation always turns back to ridiculous side issues like this.  Who cares??? There are REAL issues that have to be dealt with.  If Santorum is elected president he can't just make abortions illegal, ban them, etc without an executive order which would likely be overturned.  A republican congress or senate could put legislation forward for it, but would likely not get passed (Democratic senate/Republican congress) or never even be introduced (opposite scenario).  So, it would result in a ton of wasted time on a side social issue which is, in the long run, completely unimportant.  

Meanwhile, the government will have wracked up another couple trillion in debt, Iran will have nukes and will be threatening Israel, the Taliban will still be in Afghanistan, China will still be surging, etc.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Feb 2012)




----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Feb 2012)

>But Santorum is also the one advocating the State's ability to ban contraception

Actually, he advocates the states' right to ban contraception.  That has an extraordinarily different meaning in view of the fact he is seeking federal, not state, executive office.   And in the US, given the constitutional structure, it is entirely uncontroversial to adopt the position that "states may do X", irrespective of almost anything "X" might be.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But Santorum is also the one advocating the State's ability to ban contraception
> 
> Actually, he advocates the states' right to ban contraception.  That has an extraordinarily different meaning in view of the fact he is seeking federal, not state, executive office.   And in the US, given the constitutional structure, it is entirely uncontroversial to adopt the position that "states may do X", irrespective of almost anything "X" might be.



Roger that.  Much like the "notwithstanding clause" we have, which is why Quebec has essentially been allowed to pass language laws that are blatantly biased.  

If a state and it's people REALLY want to ban contraception, and it's not unconstitutional, than what's the problem? If it's unconstitutional, than it'll be squashed in the courts.  If not, and I repeat, if supported by a majority of people, than so be it.  That's democracy.


----------



## cupper (21 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This is what I was saying... the conversation always turns back to ridiculous side issues like this.  Who cares??? There are REAL issues that have to be dealt with.



If there are real issues to be dealt with, why then has the GOP put forth from DAY 1 of this congressional session anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-healtcare bills. The first bill put forth by the GOP majority in the house included an amendment to strip funding from Planned Parenthood.

So far they have passed fewer bills and resolutions than any prior session.

And at the state level it has been far worse. Virginia GO legislature, senate and Governor in this current session have put forth legislation on gay marriage, gun rights, personhood, anti abortion, and vaginal probing of women without consent. (By the way, Governor McDonnell has ambitions for running on the GOP ticket this year as VP.)

So, if there are real issues to be dealt with, WTF aren't they doing something about it.

And by doing something about it, I don't mean obstructing the Obama Administration at every step so the electorate will make him a one-term president. I mean putting forth actual, real solutions to the problems that they know will pass both the House and Senate, with bipartisan support.


----------



## cupper (21 Feb 2012)

And we finally have absolute proof that voter fraud is alive and well in America.

Indiana election chief guilty of voter fraud

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72450.html

INDIANAPOLIS  - Indiana's top elections official could lose his job and his freedom after jurors convicted him of multiple voter fraud-related charges on Saturday, leaving in flux the fate of one of the state's most powerful positions.
Republican Secretary of State Charlie White has held on to his office for more than a year despite being accused of lying about his address on voter registration forms.

A Hamilton County jury found White guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one fraud charge.

White expressed no outward emotion as the verdict was read, and later said outside the courtroom: "'I'm disappointed for my family and the people who supported me."

It wasn't immediately clear what would happen to White's elected office. He has resisted calls to resign from Democrats and Republicans, including Gov. Mitch Daniels, but state law bars anyone convicted of a felony from remaining in office.

White's attorney, Carl Brizzi, said he will ask the judge to reduce the charges to misdemeanors because his client has no criminal background and has a long record of public service.

Daniels announced Saturday he had appointed White's chief deputy, Jerry Bonnet, as interim secretary of state.

"I have chosen not to make a permanent appointment today out of respect for the judge's authority to lessen the verdict to a misdemeanor and reinstate the elected office holder," Daniels said in a statement. "If the felony convictions are not altered, I anticipate making a permanent appointment quickly."

Bonnet has worked for the secretary of state's office since 2005, the statement said.

The jury verdict came after a weeklong trial in which White, who had vigorously protested the charges in hearings before a state elections panel, presented no defense.

Prosecutors said he used his ex-wife's address instead of a condo he had with his fiancÃ©e because he didn't want to give up his $1,000-per-month Fishers Town Council salary after moving out of that district. He faced seven felony charges, including voter fraud, perjury and theft.
White, 42, has said the charges ignored a complicated personal life in which he was trying to raise his 10-year-old son, plan his second marriage and campaign for the statewide office he won that November. He said he stayed at his ex-wife's house when he wasn't on the road campaigning and did not live in the condo until after he remarried.

Brizzi told the jury during his closing arguments Friday that White's name was on the condo's bills and documents because he was paying for his fiancee and her children to live there, not because he was living at that address.
No sentencing date was set.
Republican special prosecutor John Dowd expressed satisfaction about the verdict.
"We believe it was about someone who violated the law and cheated the system - and gamed the system," Dowd said. "And, obviously, the jury thought the same way."
A Marion County judge has ruled that White should be replaced by Democrat Vop Osili, the man he defeated by about 300,000 votes in the November 2010 election, but that ruling is on hold pending an appeal.
Attorney Karen Celestino-Horseman, who watched the trial and spoke on behalf of Indiana Democrats following the verdict, said the party believes White's conviction further affirms that Osili should be secretary of state.
"(White) has been convicted, but the judge has left it open for misdemeanor sentencing. That's something that's going to have to be examined," she said.
During his closing arguments, assistant special prosecutor Dan Sigler Jr. argued that White knew that he was committing voter fraud but did it anyway for political power.
"If we aren't going to enforce election law against the secretary of state of Indiana, who are we going to enforce it against?" Sigler said.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> If there are real issues to be dealt with, why then has the GOP put forth from DAY 1 of this congressional session anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-healtcare bills.


Look at the language you just used.  Everything the GOP has done has been "anti", according to you (and yes, according to many).  Language is powerful, no?  But looking at it from the other side, they need to be "anti" (insert subject here), because someone has been pushing their own "pro" (insert subject here).  Same coin, different side.  And I suppose they are "anti" (insert subject here), because they believe that it's important.
Anti-abortion?  Nope, protecting innocent human life from being killed.  Anti same-sex marraige?  Nope, pro "traditional" marriage (you know, the kind that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, pre-dating every major religion out there).  Anti-healthcare?  Nope: pro "you want it, you pay for it yourself".

It's all in the argument, but as I said, they are "anti" stuff that someone else is "pro" and is also pushing.  So, same coin, just a different side is all.


----------



## cupper (21 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It's all in the argument, but as I said, they are "anti" stuff that someone else is "pro" and is also pushing.  So, same coin, just a different side is all.



How about this: Pro Socially conservative agenda?

po TAE to vs po TAT o


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Feb 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> If there are real issues to be dealt with, why then has the GOP put forth from DAY 1 of this congressional session anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-healtcare bills. The first bill put forth by the GOP majority in the house included an amendment to strip funding from Planned Parenthood.



Please read above- I stated definitively that BOTH sides refused to address real issues equally.  I would suggest that it's not "if" there are real issues to be dealt with than "There are".  

GOP= Right wing fools who refuse to do anything important or useful and focus on sideshow social issues that play well on TV;
Democrats= Left wing fools who refuse to do anything important or useful and focus on sideshow social issues that play well on TV.

As for why aren't they doing anything about it? Probably because the real solutions required to fix the debt problem would require actual leadership, actual vision, and actual backbone to do.... meaning that NEITHER party will do it.  Sort of why Canada maintains its grossly inefficient and ineffective health care system... most reasonable people realize it needs significant changes, but god (or whoever you want) bless the person who actually tries to fix it.

Finally, your discussion of Virginia, as TV notes, I guess it's "only worse" if you're pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage.  If you're anti, which I ASSUME that the majority of the electorate that elected their government, than you probably consider it a good thing.

As for blocking Obama and trying to make him a 1 term president, it would be the same if it were a GOP president with democrats as the opposite.  If you dont think that, you're crazy.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Feb 2012)

I got the pro and anti sides backwards for Virginia, but you get the picture.

Besides, who cares if Virginia wants to be a socially conservative area? If it's the majorities will, and constitutional, than so be it.  If someone doesn't like it than they can;

A) Run for government, win, and change the laws;
B) Deal with it, living in the state and accepting that if they want to get an abortion for their lesbian partner after their gay marriage than they'll probably need to go out of state for it; or 
C) Just move.

It's a free country.


----------



## cupper (21 Feb 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I got the pro and anti sides backwards for Virginia, but you get the picture.
> 
> Besides, who cares if Virginia wants to be a socially conservative area? If it's the majorities will, and constitutional, than so be it.  If someone doesn't like it than they can;
> 
> ...



The problem with Virginia is that the GOP gained control of the Senate based on a manipulation of the rules. The Senate is evenly split 20 seats each. However the Lieutenant Governor casts the deciding vote in all matters except budgetary. As such, the Dems pushed for a co-operative situation, where committees were put together with even numbers, and co-chairs, or split the committees between the two parties, some with Dem control, some with GOP control. But the GOP balked, forced a vote, and since the Lt. Gov. cast the deciding vote, Bob's your uncle.

The voter breakdown doesn't support a majority stance in either case. For the most part it is a state in flux, but the socially conservative agenda is only coming forth due to playing with the rules, not because the voters want it that way. A tale of two states, the conservative south, and the moderate north.

But Virginia does matter, because it is a swing state. For years it was a certainty that it would put forth a GOP win. But in 2008, due mainly to the shift in demographics Obama was able to swing the vote. And if the GOP wants to play the social conservative agenda, alienating the moderates, then they are shooting themselves in the foot while stepping on a land mine.

I really have no use for either party, as neither can focus on what needs to be done. I watched the Dems piss away every opportunity to succeed during the Bush Administration, I've watched the Obama Administration underachieve, given the historic nature. And I've watched teh GOP get hijacked by a vocal minority of extreme right, giving up the center where any party needs to build support in order to get elected.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Feb 2012)

You know, I find it amusing that the left here will twist themselves into knots to portray Mr Harper as a "George Bush clone" or "Republican stooge". If truth be told, the Republicans could learn a thing or two from Mr Harper when it comes to turning the tide.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Feb 2012)

>And by doing something about it, I don't mean obstructing the Obama Administration at every step so the electorate will make him a one-term president. I mean putting forth actual, real solutions to the problems that they know will pass both the House and Senate, with bipartisan support.

Actually, it is the Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Senate which obstruct the Republican-controlled House.  The House has put forth, even passed, several bills to address various matters including budgetary; however, Obama and Reid either announce in advance their obstructionism or execute it on the rare occasions bills arrive.  How many budgets has Obama submitted that he knows will pass House and Senate with bipartisan support?  How many real solutions have Reid and his gang put up that will pass Congress with bipartisan support and be signed by the president?

Works both ways, you see, except the president and Senate's record for proposing and passing budgetary legislation that will be seriously considered is worse - Obama's budget proposals don't always pass muster with his own party's Senate.


----------



## cupper (22 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Actually, it is the Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Senate which obstruct the Republican-controlled House.



That's laughable when you consider that the GOP House Speaker can't even exert enough control over his own members to close a deal which even the Senate GOP leader is willing to sign off on. The tea party tail ends up wagging the dog.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2012)

The issue of controlling the narrative is very important, hence the great deal of time and attention devoted to "side issues". I will note the issue of contraception and abortion was raised by the moderator (a member of the media) during a Republican candidates debate just in advance of the Administration putting forth their position that even Catholic institutions must provide birth control and abortifacts. Coincidence? It is hard to prove but it is awfully convenient to derailing discussion of other issues.

The establishment Republicans (whatever name you give them) are not willing to come down hard on such issues as tax reform or spending cuts because they also benefit from the current system. In one sense, we are seeing the Reform/PC battle of the 1990's being replayed, only due to the two party system that has evolved in the United States, the battle is taking place within the body of one of the political parties, with the TEA Party movement being the rough analogy of Reform. AS the TEA Party movement burrows deeper into the body of the Republican Party by taking over wards (similar in effect to taking over riding associations here), the establishment in Washington becomes more frantic, as their grip on party apparatus and ultimately the ability to milk the system becomes compromised.

Given the time and resources available, the TEA Party movement will probably win the battle in the Senate and House, as well as further downline in the State Houses and Governor's mansions. They can and should also start working on civic government at the municipal and county level as well. The current crop of Republican contenders for President represent powerful interests with resources the TEA Party can't match (yet), and probably not for another electoral cycle. If President Obama loses (and an economic hiccup in Europe or China might be all it takes), the new President will be facing some active opposition of his own from the Republican Senate and House.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Feb 2012)

Yeah? Well Obama is a better singer than Romney!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2012)

Round and round it goes. Same rhetoric for the last 30 pages. Same arguements. Same partisan swipes.

I'll revisit is November. There might be something new by then............maybe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2012)

Evidently the irony of one side claiming that obstructionism originates with the other, and that all the bipartisan reach-around reach-through must originate with the other, is lost on some people.


----------



## Haletown (23 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Round and round it goes. Same rhetoric for the last 30 pages. Same arguements. Same partisan swipes.
> 
> I'll revisit is November. There might be something new by then............maybe.



Yup . . .


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Feb 2012)

A somewhat different take on Santorum in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/canadians-thinking-santorum-means-obama-would-win-need-to-think-again/article2347158/


> Canadians thinking Santorum means Obama would win need to think again
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Actually, I am not certain that the _moral position_ of the POTUS has any measurable bearing on Canada/US relations. While some of Sen. Santorum's positions are anathema to many Canadians it is likely, in my opinion, that most Canadians will hold their noses and look for our PM to make the best deals possible for *our* national interests - harmonizing e.g. product standards has nothing to do with abortions; _thinning_ the border is unrelated to gay marriage.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I am not certain that the _moral position_ of the POTUS has any measurable bearing on Canada/US relations. While some of Sen. Santorum's positions are anathema to many Canadians it is likely, in my opinion, that most Canadians will hold their noses and look for our PM to make the best deals possible for *our* national interests - harmonizing e.g. product standards has nothing to do with abortions; _thinning_ the border is unrelated to gay marriage.



Mr. Ibbitson's article has a bit of soft prejudice in it, but I think you hit the nail on the head.  The PM, no matter who it is, will attempt to further our national interests irrespective of Mr. Romney's (or whoever's) moral code.  We deal with China, for heaven's sake, and though many will beat the drums that we ought not to deal with China for their humans rights conduct, those same people still buy "Made in China".


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2012)

Ibbitson should know better.  Look at all the things Obama outright said he would do, few of which have come to pass.  It is unlikely Santorum is single-handedly going to turn the US into a Puritan colony.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2012)

An interesting poll, with really counterintuative results. The authors promise more detailed analysis in the days to come, so there should be a better understanding of these results:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/02/23/santorum-rice-excel-in-pj-media-presidential-poll/?print=1



> *Santorum, Rice Excel in PJ Media Presidential Poll*
> Posted By Roger L Simon On February 23, 2012 @ 9:48 am In Uncategorized | 71 Comments
> 
> PJ Media doesn’t get frequently into the polling game, but slightly more than two years ago we commissioned polls in the Massachusetts senatorial race and were the first to show a growing gap in favor of Republican candidate Scott Brown.
> ...



Some of our American members can help here; isn't Dr Rice ineligable to become President since she has never held elective office?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2012)

You think?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/dem-pollster-warns-that-voters-will-scoff-at-claims-of-recovery/



> *Dem pollster warns that voters will scoff at claims of recovery*
> posted at 11:00 am on February 24, 2012 by Ed MorrisseyBarack
> 
> Obama wants to ask for a second term as President on the message that “America is back,” claiming that he has pulled the nation into a path for prosperity and job creation.  That will come as a big surprise to American workers, who have not seen any improvement in their job situation or economic position, warns Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg:
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2012)

A perspective, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the challenges that face the eventual GOP nominee:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/it-will-take-a-leader-to-reassemble-the-gop/article2349275/


> It will take a leader to reassemble the GOP
> 
> WALLER NEWELL
> 
> ...




I'm not sure any of the candidates has the leadership skills Prof. Newell things are necessary to unite the Republicans. Perhaps the GOP is destined to spend a time in the political _wilderness_ while it reconnects with its own country.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2012)

Informal campaign. Will the administration be taken down by Samizdat?:


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2012)

A premonition, of sorts, about the 2012 election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from then _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/as-gop-race-drags-on-republicans-see-white-house-slipping-away/article2352074/


> As GOP race drags on, Republicans see White House slipping away
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> 
> ...




The _Tea Party_ is a minority, not just within America but even within the GOP. The _religious right_ is also a minority. The two overlap to some degree which means that the whole is _lesser_ than the parts. The Santorum/Gingrich "base" is a minority within the GOP; so is the Romney "base" of _establishment_ Republicans.

The Democrats, united though they (*temporarily*) may be, are also a minority in America but, being a large and, temporarily, united minority they have the best chance of winning the hearts and minds of enough independent voters to secure the White House, retain the Senate and maybe even take back the House: all because most Republicans cannot agree to put the good of the country ahead of ideological purity.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Feb 2012)

I hadn't heard Mr. Obama suggest that every American go get some post-secondary.  I agree with Mr. Santorum in that it's not for everyone.  I don't know if I agree with the suggestion that it makes him a "snob", however.  



> ...he downright scares them with his call for a marriage of church and state.
> “What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Mr. Santorum told ABC News on Sunday. “That makes me throw up.”


I don't see this as a call for marriage of church and state.  I see this rather as a call to not ignore those people "of faith".


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2012)

Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).




That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "_windows into men's souls_." That is changing in 20th and 21st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.


----------



## Redeye (28 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "_windows into men's souls_." That is changing in 20th and 21st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.



That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.
> 
> I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (28 Feb 2012)

Did you have a point here?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.
> 
> I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.




Most of the founding fathers were Christians, mainly Protestant Christians; a few (notably Franklin, Jefferson and Paine) were _deists_ ~ but of a sort that did not offend the beliefs of the majority; that they *excluded* religion generally, and Christianity specifically, from the Constitution is undeniable, but equally undeniable is the broad, general reverence for the idea of a universal creator who looks a lot like the Protestant Christian god. They were leading a believing Christian, broadly Protestant Christian, people to found a new nation based upon some "universal" ideas and ideals - but universality in their world meant 18th century Protestant Christian. History must be read in its context.


----------



## Redeye (28 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Most of the founding fathers were Christians, mainly Protestant Christians; a few (notably Franklin, Jefferson and Paine) were _deists_ ~ but of a sort that did not offend the beliefs of the majority; that they *excluded* religion generally, and Christianity specifically, from the Constitution is undeniable, but equally undeniable is the broad, general reverence for the idea of a universal creator who looks a lot like the Protestant Christian god. They were leading a believing Christian, broadly Protestant Christian, people to found a new nation based upon some "universal" ideas and ideals - but universality in their world meant 18th century Protestant Christian. History must be read in its context.



Agreed. The general theme was to keep that separation of the church's ideas (and power) from those of the state.

I don't think anyone denies the idea that Judeo-Christian religion influenced Western society in general, but it has it's place and political processes have theirs.

What I did want to make clear is that I find the extreme positions taken to try to force religion out of "public" as repugnant as the religious extremism that's also emerging - the Christian Dominionist movement frankly scares the s**t out of me, and needs to be called on the carpet. But so to are those who'd like to ban people from praying in schools as long as no one's forced to participate. Both are just silly.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2012)

Argyll has it right.

The Americans, even the deists, generally were "God-Fearing".  But they felt that each person ("man" in their terms) had a right to fear his own god in his own way - or even to believe in the absence of gods.  This is what set them apart from all of the Europeans that believed in Church and State being one and the same (Aaron and Moses).  As ERC says, that association had been abused by the State in the Pulpit and the Confessional.  

The Americans were not opposed to God.  They were opposed to the State telling them what God to have......And I believe they would argue that the State telling they should have NO God was just as much anathema as the State telling them to kneel before the Cross.

A popular contemporary institution of the times, in my view, highlights this: the Masons.  I don't know the origins or purposes of the Masons.   I am not one.  But I know Masons, one of them my Grandfather.  He was brought up in the "secretive" craft of Protestant Scotland.  An elder of the Kirk.  His lodge was the lodge of Robert Burns.
An Old Testament Protestant.   The one thing that relatives that are still in the Masons have told me, that rings true, is that it was not important what god you believed in when you joined the Masons. A Kipling poem describes an Indian lodge meeting of Scot and English, Hindu and Muslim. Even Catholics were apparently allowed to join the Masons but their Church wouldn't permit it because of the freedom of discourse it encouraged.  

But my grandfathers Masons were not the continental Masons.  One of the key distinctions, dating back to the time of Freemason Benjamin Franklin, was that the continental Masons progressed......and accepted Atheists in their midsts.  The British Masons, to my understanding, still require their members to believe in a higher power.

Some Americans, like some Brits, Canadians, Jews and Iranians may believe they or the world would be better served if everybody were forced to act according their god's rules,  thus removing temptation.  But most don't.

America, like reformed Hanoverian Britain, was and is a place where everyman has a right to go to h**l in whatever manner he chooses and the State will stay out of it.

It is not that founding fathers feared the Church explicitly, though many did.   It is not that they feared the State explicitly, though many did.  They feared the conjunction of Church and State.   They would equally have feared the conjunction of Masons and State.  

Their greatest fear was of the concentration of power and everything they ever did demonstrates that they accepted institutions for their necessary roles but did everything within their power to ensure that all institutions were counter-balanced.  The infamous checks and balances.  

America is supposed to be grid-locked.  America was never intended to be marching in lock-step behind one Great Leader.  That was the ultimate nightmare.

Edit: In looking at this again it dawns on me that America needs a third party to function correctly.  The rest of America's institutions are based on the geometry of the eternal triangle.  Best two out of three wins.


----------



## Redeye (28 Feb 2012)

Great post, Kirkhill. Couple things: to the best of my knowledge, Masons have never accepted anyone who specifically claims to be an atheist. My understanding is that you have to believe in some concept of a "Great Architect". My father's a Mason, and tempers his atheism by accepting a sort of pantheistic view. He figures if nature has organized itself the way it has, that's essentially enough to make it "the Great Architect". But my knowledge of Freemasonry isn't such that I can really make much more statement.

It's interesting that the "third party" concept is rejected as unworkable in the USA by some - as though their current system is to be perceived as "working", when it clearly isn't.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Agreed. The general theme was to keep that separation of the church's ideas (and power) from those of the state.



[tangent, albeit slight]
Looking at the context of the late 18th Century, throughout Europe in General and England in particular, the power of The Church was ubiquitous.  Fleeing such long reaching fingers of ANY Church was what, in many cases, drove people to leave Europe and go to the New World.   There were other reasons, of course, economic being probably the greatest of any, but given the Protestant view (and I don't mean Anglican) that it's "One Man, One Bible, One God", it makes perfect sense that the rebels revolutionaries of the 13 colonies would frame their constitution as they did.
[/tangent]


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent, albeit slight]
> Looking at the context of the late 18th Century, throughout Europe in General and England in particular, the power of The Church was ubiquitous.  Fleeing such long reaching fingers of ANY Church was what, in many cases, drove people to leave Europe and go to the New World.   There were other reasons, of course, economic being probably the greatest of any, but given the Protestant view (and I don't mean Anglican) that it's "One Man, One Bible, One God", it makes perfect sense that the rebels revolutionaries of the 13 colonies would frame their constitution as they did.
> [/tangent]



Absolutely agreed -  Most of the struggles for power have been triangular, usually Money, Military and Missionary.

For the kings of Europe the catholic (universal) church served their needs exactly so long as it told the peasantry the kings wanted said.  When Rome started saying different things after the Belgian Charlie Hapsburg took over the Vatican then the Teutonic Knights and the Hanseatic League created the Lutheran Church, Henry created the Anglican Church and Francis created the Gallican Church.  Francis and his heirs played their hand more deftly and held on the Catholic brand even when they were at loggerheads with Hapsburg Popes.  The Medici influence no doubt.

One thing all of them could agree on.... Calvinists (Huguenot or Covenanters) needed to be exterminated for their ridiculous notions on people power.

Centuries later the same power structures are in play..... but as you said.  It is to digress.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

I sometimes envy all you well versed historians out there.   I sometimes get by with relatively accurate fictional works.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I sometimes envy all you well versed historians out there.   I sometimes get by with relatively accurate fictional works.



 :sarcasm:
Like the Bible?  

Oh wait, you said accurate 8)


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :sarcasm:
> Like the Bible?
> 
> Oh wait, you said accurate 8)



You are a brave bugger aren't you?    Or is just that with all that time "turret down" you have forgotten what slings and arrows feel like?  >


----------



## ballz (28 Feb 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In looking at this again it dawns on me that America needs a third party to function correctly.



IMO, if a socially progressive, fiscally conservative party in the US emerges, it would absolutely dominate... we would not see another party in office for close to 2 decades.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

I said, relatively accurate.  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I said, relatively accurate.  ;D



I think my point stands >


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2012)

Just when one thinks things cannot get any worse for the GOP, _Reuters_ reports that U.S. fourth-quarter growth revised to 3%, _Reuters_, Published Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012:

"The U.S. economy grew a bit faster than initially thought in the fourth quarter on slightly firmer consumer and business spending, which could help to allay fears of a sharp slowdown in growth in early 2012.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 3-per-cent annual rate, the quickest pace since the second quarter of 2010, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate. That was a step up from the 2.8 per cent pace it reported in January.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected fourth-quarter GDP would be unrevised at a 2.8 per cent pace. The economy grew at a 1.8-per-cent pace in the third quarter."

More on link


Maybe Obama is just stumbling along the right path or, at least, not the most wrong path, despite his political ideology. Maybe the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Feb 2012)

I would not put it past the current administration to manipulate the info, any info.

How many times have we heard from opposition politicians from every party state "We have to see the books", not believing the reports/fiscal info/statistics release by a government?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How many times have we heard from opposition politicians from every party state "We have to see the books", not believing the reports/fiscal info/statistics release by a government?


And then get into government, see things _very_ differently, go with their own flow (and biases glasses through which to view and share the numbers), only to have a new opposition say "hey, we need to see the new books"?

I wouldn't put it past _any_ administration.....


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I would not put it past the current administration to manipulate the info, any info.
> 
> How many times have we heard from opposition politicians from every party state "We have to see the books", not believing the reports/fiscal info/statistics release by a government?



The MSM is still in the bag for Obama so they can be selective in what and how they cover up for him.

For a different non political view . . .  Mama knows

http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/


----------



## Redeye (29 Feb 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The MSM is still in the bag for Obozo so they can be selective in what and how they cover up for him.
> 
> For a different non political view . . .  Mama knows
> 
> http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/



I'm putting all my RRSP money into ALCOA and ALCAN. Seems like tinfoil sales are still brisk.

In other news, the NASDAQ broke a 3000 for the first time since 2000. All this good economic news will have little issue drowning out the noise if it continues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I would not put it past the current administration to manipulate the info, any info.
> ...




Nor would I, after all, all administrations, Democrat and Republican, lie and cook the books to look better, especially in an election year ... and I do not quibble with the notion that the MSM is lazy and gullible and will not bother seeking independent verification  of the Commerce Department's guesstimates.

The "good news," for Obama, is on page 1; the corrections, if there are any, will be on page 7, near the bottom.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm putting all my RRSP money into ALCOA and ALCAN. Seems like tinfoil sales are still brisk.


:rofl:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Feb 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Obozo



Haletown,....I have mentioned several times in this thread that we will not tolerate this sort of name-calling on this website.
This is your freebie warning, next time you will go into the warning system.
Bruce
Staff


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Haletown,....I have mentioned several times in this thread that we will not tolerate this sort of name-calling on this website.
> This is your freebie warning, next time you will go into the warning system.
> Bruce
> Staff


 
Wilco.

Error corrected.


----------



## 211RadOp (29 Feb 2012)

I guess Romney thinks that the US people "deserve" our oil.



> Romney promises 'oil from Canada that we deserve'
> 
> CTVNews.ca Staff
> 
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120229/romney-michigan-victory-speech-oil-that-we-deserve-remarks-120229/


----------



## cupper (29 Feb 2012)

I may have said this before, but it is worth repeating in light of today's announcement from Maine GOP Senator Olympia Snowe.

She said she won't be seeking re-election at the end her term, because she is tire of the partisan polarization that has become the norm in congress.

It seems that a lot of the moderates from both parties are giving up on the institution because they no longer want to be in a system that serves no purpose other than to score points for their side against the other. The value obstruction and defeat over cooperation and compromise.

At least she is the first to truly state the real problem and why she is leaving, rather than pull the old "I want to spend more time with the family" line.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2012)

Alienating the base (again). This should do wonders for California's already dismal economic performance, and get yet another group of voters stirred up against the current Administration:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/29/obama-ill-veto-bill-that-will-provide-water-to-californias-central-valley/



> *Obama: I’ll veto bill that will provide water to California’s Central Valley*
> posted at 2:30 pm on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> I’ve called the judicially-imposed drought in California’s Central Valley “the Dust Bowl Congress created” through its creation of the Endangered Species Act, invoked in this case by the Delta smelt, a fish that’s not suitable for eating.  Once a breadbasket for the nation, the cutoff of irrigation water to the Central Valley has destroyed agriculture and tens of thousands of jobs as a tradeoff for the endangered fish.  Now, however, voices of sanity in Congress have begun to speak on the man-made economic and agricultural disaster, as Rep. Devin Nunes builds support for his Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Reliability Act:
> ...



And a reader at Instapundit adds:



> BARACK OBAMA DOESN’T CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE: Obama: I’ll veto bill that will provide water to California’s Central Valley.
> 
> UPDATE: Reader Delos Walton writes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2012)

As per the Keystone decision, POTUS Obama needs the green vote, money and media support more than he needs the industrial or agricultural jobs and economic improvements.

The greens could make November miserable for him if they don't get what they want from him.  They are a core electoral component, along with big labor, that he must hold on to get his second term.  He'll most likely keep the big bucks flowing to favored green industries despite Solyndra and LightSquared fiascos to prove his green bonafides.


Simple electoral arithmetic for Obama.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I may have said this before, but it is worth repeating in light of today's announcement from Maine GOP Senator Olympia Snowe.
> 
> At least she is the first to truly state the real problem and why she is leaving, rather than pull the old "I want to spend more time with the family" line.



Except:

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/snowe/



> *Did lawsuit factor in Olympia Snowe's departure?*
> By Bill Allison and Lindsay Young Feb 29 2012 6:35 p.m. 8 comments
> 
> Last August, while Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was in the midst of an intensive round of fundraising for her 2012 reelection bid, a four-year-old civil lawsuit alleging fraud by an education company in which she and her husband are heavily invested became public.
> ...



The administration has been putting a lot of pressure on "for profit" education, mostly because the "not for profit" education sector is heavily dependent on government grants and heavily Democrat; a KO of a Republican senator as collateral damage would be icing on the cake.


----------



## Jed (1 Mar 2012)

Copied from an Email my uncle sent me. (A USA - Canadian  dual citizen)

This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political double talk we get...........

This puts things it into a much better perspective and is
the same for many countries in Europe ...


Why the U.S. was downgraded:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed. budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ?????

OK now Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer
backup in your neighbourhood....and your home has sewage all the way up
to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the shit?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just when one thinks things cannot get any worse for the GOP, _Reuters_ reports that U.S. fourth-quarter growth revised to 3%, _Reuters_, Published Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012:
> 
> "The U.S. economy grew a bit faster than initially thought in the fourth quarter on slightly firmer consumer and business spending, which could help to allay fears of a sharp slowdown in growth in early 2012.
> 
> ...




But David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist for Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc, begs to differ in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/david-rosenberg/rosy-us-jobs-picture-weve-been-down-this-path-before/article2354378/


> Rosy U.S. jobs picture? We’ve been down this path before
> 
> DAVID ROSENBERG
> 
> ...




If Rosenberg is right, if companies will, indeed, "repsond in the spring by curbing their hiring plans" then that is bad news for Obama.

Obama's approval ratings have climbed all the way up to about 50%, but he needs several months of sustained "good news," all the way to November, to win the election; he can, maybe, afford a weak spring but the summer and fall must be good or his campaign will be in real trouble and the GOP can win IF they have a credible candidate Americans believe can turn things around ~ neither Gingrich nor Santorum qualify, in my opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Copied from an Email my uncle sent me. (A USA - Canadian  dual citizen)
> 
> This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political double talk we get...........
> 
> ...



Obama would rather reinforce the doors and windows and hand out laxatives to everyone.


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Copied from an Email my uncle sent me. (A USA - Canadian  dual citizen)
> 
> 
> OK now Lesson # 2:
> ...



or blame it on George Bush


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2012)

interesting story . . .

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1cdafed6-6342-11e1-9245-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1o6QP1XeR

This election is going to be a watershed vote for America, one of those "more important" historical moments, a pivot point that will determine what political philosophical vision will prevail.

It is going to be a most entertaining campaign for political junkies to watch.


----------



## larry Strong (4 Mar 2012)

I wonder how thiss is going to go over:

GM temporarily halting production of its Chevrolet Volt


Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120304/gm-halts-chevrolet-volt-production-120304/#ixzz1oB7Q2LDC



> DALLAS — General Motors Co. is suspending production of its Chevrolet Volt electric car for five weeks amid disappointing sales.
> 
> A GM spokesman said Friday that the company will shut down production of the Volt from March 19 until April 23, idling 1,300 workers at the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2012)

While this is from the last election, it only goes to show how "narrative" is being used to drown out facts. Look again at the poll numbers and see where John McCain slipped and what really caused him to lose the 2008 election:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/03/game-change-wrong-gallup-polls-prove-palin-reenergized-2008-campaign



> *WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE? HBO OR GALLUP?*
> 
> by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro  1 day ago 535 POST A COMMENT
> 
> ...



So the factual evidence proves Governor Palin was a huge asset to the Republican campaign, but the need of the Democrtats to destroy her political career and the fact she rubbed the Republican establishment the wrong way (looking at her political background, Governor Palin essentially overturned the GOP establishment in Alaska and was quite effective in carrying out her campaign promises on energy and taxation by working effectively with both sides of the State legislature, which probably upset the Washington GOP establishment) provided the "narrative" of her career that we see today.

This is important to the 2012 campaign, the "narrative" of class warfare and redistribution is already written by the Democrats, the Republicans will have to overturn that "narrative" while staying on message with their own "narrative" (whatever that turns out to be. Looking at the various candidates left there are at leat three narratives, and three corresponding counter narratives that will be used to attack them).


----------



## cupper (5 Mar 2012)

The article conveniently overlooks the fact that most of the gaffs that Palin was crucified for took place after the period discussed in the article.

The infamous interview with Katie Couric aired on September 24th and 25th. And this was only the start of her less than stellar performance.

Also, the polls in the article appear to only cover the opinions of Republican voters, which would have a natural bias toward Palin. The voters that really matter are the independents who really make up the deciding factor in any US election.

 :sarcasm: Gotta love the revisionist history of the right wing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Mar 2012)

It doesn't really matter when the gaffes took place.  All politicians make gaffes; some get a media pass.


----------



## cupper (6 Mar 2012)

But when those gaffs are serious enough to call the candidates abilities and preparedness into question, it matters.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But when those gaffs are serious enough to call the candidates abilities and preparedness into question, it matters.



57 States.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Mar 2012)

There is nothing Palin said or did which I find makes her less qualified or prepared than Mr-Lost-Without-A-Prepared-Speech-and-Teleprompter, or his elected sidekick.  She's schoolteacher/journalist grade material, but the presidency doesn't need a policy wonk because no policy wonk would ever have enough time.  It needs someone who can choose reasonably objective competent advisors, make decisions, and maintain presidential demeanour in the face of criticism and resistance.  Palin scores less than fair on presidential conduct due to some of her stunts, but I think Obama scores poorly on all three.  Most of his advisors are too far into their ideas about how the world should be and too far away from how the world is, and he manages to punt most of what should be his decisions and projects.  His thin skin and petulance are beyond all doubt.


----------



## Redeye (7 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There is nothing Palin said or did which I find makes her less qualified or prepared than Mr-Lost-Without-A-Prepared-Speech-and-Teleprompter, or his elected sidekick.  She's schoolteacher/journalist grade material, but the presidency doesn't need a policy wonk because no policy wonk would ever have enough time.  It needs someone who can choose reasonably objective competent advisors, make decisions, and maintain presidential demeanour in the face of criticism and resistance.  Palin scores less than fair on presidential conduct due to some of her stunts, but I think Obama scores poorly on all three.  Most of his advisors are too far into their ideas about how the world should be and too far away from how the world is, and he manages to punt most of what should be his decisions and projects.  His thin skin and petulance are beyond all doubt.



I'm sending a bill for a new keyboard for this. I don't know if it was written sarcastically, but I hope so.

Palin as schoolteacher/journalist grade material? You must be joking. She displayed an ignorance of issues that was stunning. Yes, I accept that no one knows everything, and that sometimes people misspeak. One needs to be able to overlook that for all people, within reason anyhow. It's not as though Palin was tripping up on "gotcha" questions, they were relatively mundane ones in a lot of cases.

I'm amazed that we're still going on and on about teleprompters. So he uses them. So do plenty of other politicians and figures. Does he sound more polished using them? Yes. THAT'S THE WHOLE BLASTED IDEA. Can he speak without them? Yes, he can. Best speaker ever without? No, probably not. Fine.

Does he choose compentent advisors? I guess your perception of that depends on how you see the world. I'd probably find any advisors chosen by a GOP adminstration troublesome, since they'd probably resort to their purveyors of their usual slate of failed bad ideas. I guess there's no way to objectively assess that.

Is the guy the greatest politician that ever walked the Earth? I don't think so. But can you compare Sarah Palin to him? Not even a little bit.


----------



## Haletown (7 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm sending a bill for a new keyboard for this. I don't know if it was written sarcastically, but I hope so.



So you expect someone else to pay for your problems . . .  explains your infatuation with POTUS Obama.

Although it won't happen, I would love for Newt to get the nod just so he could engage Obama with those seven proposed debates.  As Newt says . . .  Obama can even use a teleprompter.

He would eviscerate Obama in one-on-one debates. Because Obama without someone writing his words for him is really quite sad to watch.  



Which is why Obama will never let it happen.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that we're still going on and on about teleprompters. So he uses them. So do plenty of other politicians and figures. Does he sound more polished using them? Yes. *THAT'S THE WHOLE BLASTED IDEA*.


I'd like to focus on the part I highlighted in yellow.  And this is not a blast at President Obama or any other politician, but I would offer that the ability to speak publically is a necessary skill for politics, but it's not sufficient.  I don't mean that people must sound polished (as the example states above), but that they must be effective communicators.  Looking back in Canadian politics, Prime Minister Chretien was at his best as a communicator when he was not doing a speech (think back to the 1995 Referendum, if you're old enough).  Even President G.W. Bush was an effective orator.  I would offer that any politician who needs "polish" to effectively communicate probably isn't the best communicator, ironically enough.

So, when we elect politicians to office, we must remember to sort through the "how" and focus on the "what" of the messages they send.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Mar 2012)

Agree Haletown.

Media screams about Rush the mouth using an analogy about a thirty year old political activist who demands her entitlement for free birth control from a university she enrolled at, knowing it was against the university's code when she enrolled. (Would she want the government involved if she got pregnant ?)

Then there is the HBO's Bill Maher (who just gave one million dollars for Obama's re-election, as is his right) who called Sarah Palin a four letter word starting with the letter "c". Also called her a "Dumb Twat".

See that splashed everywhere?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Agree Haletown.
> 
> Media screams about Rush the mouth using an analogy about a thirty year old political activist who demands her entitlement for free birth control from a university she enrolled at, knowing it was against the university's code when she enrolled. (Would she want the government involved if she got pregnant ?)
> 
> ...



Despite Bill Maher's delusions, he has nowhere near the audience of Rush Limbaugh.  That makes the latter's comments far more newsworthy.


----------



## Redeye (7 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> So you expect someone else to pay for your problems . . .  explains your infatuation with POTUS Obama.



Wow.

It's a figure of speech. Sarcasm, like. Man you really must live a terrible life if things like that go right past you.


----------



## GAP (7 Mar 2012)

Can we keep to topic and can the tit-for-tat stuff....


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2012)

The article highlights the dangers of "narrative".  The article simply demonstrates the factor that ultimatly scuppered the McCain camaign was the decision to "suspend" the campaign, not Governor Palin. Now Senator McCain may have had the best of all possible motives to do this, or perhaps thought it would be the best campaign gimmick ever ("he's so concerned about America he is dropping the campaign!") or something in between, but in the end, the loss of momentum was never recovered.

Of course when people become too caught up in the "narrative", they are at a loss to explain things that don't fall into the narrative. The 2010 midterm results and Governor Palin's continuing popularity are impossible to explain using the Legacy media "narratives" about the TEA Party movement or Governor Palin's qualifications, so expect some real "wow" moments as the campaign continues and things don't fall into the neatly packaged "narratives" of either side.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Mar 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Media screams about Rush the mouth using an analogy about a thirty year old political activist who demands her entitlement for free birth control from a university she enrolled at, knowing it was against the university's code when she enrolled.


My personal opinion about providing birth control as a medical entitlement is about the same as providing marajuana for recreational purposes.

In our "First World" version of "rights", I think we've jumped the shark.


----------



## Redeye (7 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My personal opinion about providing birth control as a medical entitlement is about the same as providing marajuana for recreational purposes.
> 
> In our "First World" version of "rights", I think we've jumped the shark.



The problem - and the whole point that Ms Fluke was trying to make - is that hormonal contraceptives are not solely used for birth control. They are a medical necessity for many women for a variety of reasons. Not covering them, when insurers cover things like Viagra, makes no sense.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

Bill Maher has posted a tweet on Rush:



> Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2012)

And there ladies and gentlemen, is what civilizd discourse looks like. While I don't think Rush will be having Bill over for a beer any time soon, the response is far more gracious than anything else that has come out of this affair to date.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And there ladies and gentlemen, is what civilizd discourse looks like. While I don't think Rush will be having Bill over for a beer any time soon, the response is far more gracious than anything else that has come out of this affair to date.



Actually, no. That's Bill Maher seizing the moral high ground. I suspect Rush Limbaugh still wouldn't know civilized discourse if it punched him in the face. I don't particularly have problem with people communicating with Rush's sponsors to say, "Is this really what you want to be associated with?" Businesses have to be wary of this sort of thing, after all.

I'd love it if there were more intelligent, decent people in the commentary business on the right - but it seems like the ones I find most insightful, especially David Frum, are throwing up their hands and saying "what the hell happened to our party?" That's basically what happened to me a few years ago, I just got sick of what conservatives had to say, so I walked.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The problem - and the whole point that Ms Fluke was trying to make - is that hormonal contraceptives are not solely used for birth control. They are a medical necessity for many women for a variety of reasons. Not covering them, when insurers cover things like Viagra, makes no sense.


If a drug is prescribed for a medical condition, then it's no different than cannabis being prescribed to say chemo patients to help their appetite, for example.  I would also include Viagra as a recreational drug, by the way.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, no. That's Bill Maher seizing the moral high ground. I suspect Rush Limbaugh still wouldn't know civilized discourse if it punched him in the face.


Oh, my, look everyone: that pot just called that kettle black.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If a drug is prescribed for a medical condition, then it's no different than cannabis being prescribed to say chemo patients to help their appetite, for example.  I would also include Viagra as a recreational drug, by the way.



So, then, why would you think it's okay to have insurers make a blanket refusal to cover oral contraceptives?


----------



## Sythen (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So, then, why would you think it's okay to have insurers make a blanket refusal to cover oral contraceptives?



Because they are a private company, and will decide what they will or will not cover. It wasn't a secret that such things weren't covered, so why would you pick a company that doesn't? If it meant a huge increase in business, another would offer it already.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So, then, why would you think it's okay to have insurers make a blanket refusal to cover oral contraceptives?


When did I say that?  I'm saying that ANY drug prescribed for an existing medical condition ought to be covered. Period.


If someone just wants to fuck without getting pregnant and wants me to pay for the oral (or other) contraceptive, well, then, do they want me to pay for the wine at supper too?  The taxi home?  

No, thank you, they can pay for that themselves.

I realise that "The Pill" can be used for uses such as seen in this quote from the Interwebs:


> polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne. The pill can also induce menstruation on a regular schedule for women bothered by irregular menstrual cycles or disorders where there is dysfunctional uterine bleeding. In addition, the Pill provides some protection against breast growth that is not cancer, ectopic pregnancy, vaginal dryness and menopause-related painful intercourse


So, if it's prescribed by a physician for any of the above, or any other existing condition, why not?


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :So, if it's prescribed by a physician for any of the above, or any other existing condition, why not?



Okay. I think my high school girlfriend used irregular cycles and acne as her excuse to get it without telling her father why she wanted it. You realize that doctors will make up whatever "cause" is necessary to fit the bill, right?

And since that's the case, well then how about we dispense with this nonsense altogether?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Okay. I think my high school girlfriend used irregular cycles and acne as her excuse to get it without telling her father why she wanted it. You realize that doctors will make up whatever "cause" is necessary to fit the bill, right?
> 
> And since that's the case, well then how about we dispense with this nonsense altogether?



Sure, why not?  I mean, people also cheat on their taxes too, so why bother?  I mean, people are just going to cheat anyway...

And why maintain speed limits?  I mean, people are going to speed anyway....

So, let me get this straight, your argument is that "people are going to do it anyway, so why bother?"  The only nonsense here is your illogical argument structure.  And I suspect that not "all" doctors will make up whatever excuse to fit the bill.  Sure, some will, I'm not living in some fantasy world.  And having a 15 year old hormonal daughter, and having been a teenage boy myself, I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to stop her from "doing it".  That doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands, buy her a motel room, pay for the rubbers, and even drive over her boyfriend for her.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Because they are a private company, and will decide what they will or will not cover. It wasn't a secret that such things weren't covered, so why would you pick a company that doesn't? If it meant a huge increase in business, another would offer it already.



Economically, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The cost to an insurer (and thus the premium payers) of pregnancy is far higher, so why not cover contraceptives. Insurers have no problem covering birth control for that very reason. In the case of someone like Miss Fluke, is she to make her decision about education solely based on health insurance provisions? That seems rather ridiculous to me.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Sure, why not?  I mean, people also cheat on their taxes too, so why bother?  I mean, people are just going to cheat anyway...



There's a reason Revenue Canada doesn't chase tax cheats except big fish. It's not worth it. They came after me for a full accounting of moving expenses last year, presumably thinking I'd claimed an excessive amount and they'd get more money out of me. I don't know how much civil service time was wasted, but it turned out that I'd estimated some costs conservatively, and when pushed to be detailed, they owed me a couple hundred bucks.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> And why maintain speed limits?  I mean, people are going to speed anyway....



Similarly, cops don't chase people doing a couple of km/h over the limit.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, let me get this straight, your argument is that "people are going to do it anyway, so why bother?"  The only nonsense here is your illogical argument structure.  And I suspect that not "all" doctors will make up whatever excuse to fit the bill.  Sure, some will, I'm not living in some fantasy world.  And having a 15 year old hormonal daughter, and having been a teenage boy myself, I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to stop her from "doing it".  That doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands, buy her a motel room, pay for the rubbers, and even drive over her boyfriend for her.



My argument is that most people use birth control in some form, and most people see that it's beneficial to society to see that it's readily available - that is - covered by insurance. Before I deployed, we shifted around my health insurance benefits from work to save me paying premiums for something I didn't need and wasn't using. In the interval, I had to pick up a month's supply of pills for my wife. $50 or so without coverage. They're something like $4 normally. To someone who's living paycheque to paycheque - or students - or whomever, that's a big expense potentially. So yes, I'd expect that most doctors, realizing that the benefit is substantial would facilitate getting them covered, but the more logical position is to just make sure they're covered, which insurers have no problem with because the cost is negligible in comparison to the alternative.

I don't have a daughter, so I can't speak from first hand experience, but if I did, I'd absolutely make sure she was on the pill if that was her choice, and had access to condoms etc, because that's far better than the alternative. And I'd be quite happy if my insurance covered it. I won't presume to speak for you, but if you want to shell out lots more money on account of principle, well, that is your choice. I'd rather accept that humans will do what humans will do, and it's better to be open about it. When it comes to insurance coverage, I'd just rather say "hey, you know what, people use this stuff, and there's a societal benefit to it, so maybe we don't start making a production about it." I suspect a majority of American voters would feel the same way - as well as Canadians.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2012)

It doesn't matter whether it's for a medical condition.  Not all medical conditions are covered by insurance or public healthcare in all jurisdictions - my poor eyesight, for example.  Arguing that it should be covered for medical conditions is a null arguments; there will always be listed and unlisted goods and services.

It doesn't matter whether it makes economic sense, except to the insurer.  It's their decision whether they want to pocket the savings, or pay the overhead to suit their ideological bent.  The "it makes sense, therefore it should be imposed" fallacy is the most pernicious and liberty-eroding of all argumentation techniques advanced by advocates of government solutions to problems.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter whether it's for a medical condition.  Not all medical conditions are covered by insurance or public healthcare in all jurisdictions - my poor eyesight, for example.  Arguing that it should be covered for medical conditions is a null arguments; there will always be listed and unlisted goods and services.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether it makes economic sense, except to the insurer.  It's their decision whether they want to pocket the savings, or pay the overhead to suit their ideological bent.  The "it makes sense, therefore it should be imposed" fallacy is the most pernicious and liberty-eroding of all argumentation techniques advanced by advocates of government solutions to problems.



Thank you! You've just made my point.

It's the insurers' decision. Not the government's. Not the employer's.

This whole idea of letting employers make insurers' decisions - and impacting the health decisions of their employees - is that pernicious liberty erosion in action.

Remember, insurers are not the ones arguing for this. In fact, I think they probably find it rather ridiculous, and potentially quite annoying. See, insurers normally create prepackaged benefits - what's covered, to what amount etc. Accommodating a change like this imposes on them, and for no particularly good reason. And it opens the door to further erosions.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> My argument is that most people use birth control in some form, and most people see that it's beneficial to society to see that it's readily available -



This is where we disagree.  I would go on and make a counter argument, but that is going to fall on deaf ears.



> but if you want to shell out lots more money on account of principle, well, that is your choice.



Exactly, it's my choice.  And if you want to go out and fuck but not have kids, then shell out your own money.  It's your choice.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This is where we disagree.  I would go on and make a counter argument, but that is going to fall on deaf ears.



You can disagree, but the sheer number of women who use birth control, for whatever reason, suggests you'd be incorrect. That's all I'm saying. The whole series of events around women's health strikes me as nothing but a loser for the GOP. They need to court independents, and alienating around half of them by attacking things like access to contraception isn't the way to do that. It's not going to pay off for them in the polls at all.

Part of the challenge in elections in the States is getting people to vote. Obama's campaign succeeded in getting a lot of people out to vote. He received more popular votes that any other President in US history if memory serves, and more Electoral College votes than any in something like 20 years. He got people rallied around an idea, or rather his campaign did. The GOP is handing him another idea to rally people around, in my view. Not exactly a winning strategy.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2012)

The issue is freedom of religion .The Catholic faith doesnt condone contraceptives and for the government to tell Catholic hospitals and schools to provide free contraceptives is a violation of the Constitution.Ms Fluke is going to law school which is costing her or her family $45,000 a year.Yet she doesnt want to buy a month's supply at Walmart for $8. While I think Rush went over the line calling Fluke a loose woman,the reality is that she certainly isnt saving herself for marriage.She put herself in the public eye by making statements supporting the administrations effort to force religious instutions to do something they are opposed to on moral grounds.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Mar 2012)

You hit the nail on the head here, T6.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Mar 2012)

A pox on all their houses.  I'm glad my ancestors fled over 200 years ago.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The issue is freedom of religion .The Catholic faith doesnt condone contraceptives and for the government to tell Catholic hospitals and schools to provide free contraceptives is a violation of the Constitution.Ms Fluke is going to law school which is costing her or her family $45,000 a year.Yet she doesnt want to buy a month's supply at Walmart for $8. While I think Rush went over the line calling Fluke a loose woman,the reality is that she certainly isnt saving herself for marriage.She put herself in the public eye by making statements supporting the administrations effort to force religious instutions to do something they are opposed to on moral grounds.



Again, I find this religious freedom claim laughable, and I suspect most voters will too if it really becomes an issue. A large number of Catholic hospitals and schools did provide this coverage already without any problem, suggesting they don't really see an issue with it. Ultimately, insurance coverage is a form of compensation. So why do they care what employees do with it? How is it any more morally acceptable for them to pay out of pocket for birth control? It's not, if you really think about it. That's why I think this was the wrong thing to pick a fight over.

We're not necessarily talking about oral contraceptives, by the way, but also other methods - IUDs, implants, etc. The cost of some of those can be extremely high without insurance.

So she may or may not be "saving herself for marriage", I don't recall her making any comment to that effect. Guess what? Neither do most Americans.  The average age at which Americans lose their virginity is 17. Source: http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf So, that's basically irrelevant. Rush's pernicious three day attack on someone making a reasonable case isn't justifiable in any way, shape or form. It's that simple.

RangerRay - my wife fled 10 years ago, and she just shakes her head looking back.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye the Obama administration doesnt much care for our Constitution. Yes the government cannot impose mandates on religious organizations that run counter to their beliefs.

1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Redeye the Obama administration doesnt much care for our Constitution. Yes the government cannot impose mandates on religious organizations that run counter to their beliefs.



Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 1st Amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



Given that such provisions exist in many states already and have for quite a while, I don't think a challenge based on the Establishment Clause goes anywhere. In fact as solid a case (not very) can be made that an exemption for religious organizations of that nature violates the clause.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Great article:

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/who-paying-georgetown-undergradua

Georgetown students pay $1800/year for their health insurance. I think it's fair to say that would cover their birth control needs. The article goes into more depth about why insurers are only too happy to cover birth control options.

I particularly like the closing line: "Congratulations, libertarians! When it comes to buying a product that serves the needs of the customer versus obeying an artificial moral dictum brought out by hypocrites like Limbaugh? Capitalism wins every time."


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.


No, you spare us.  You're a fucking hypocrite who sees any argument counter to yours as "idiocy".  So, with or without contraceptives, go fuck yourself.  (It's your choice, but I'm not paying the bill).


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Spare me this idiocy. Please. Spare all of us this complete crap.
> 
> Given that such provisions exist in many states already and have for quite a while, I don't think a challenge based on the Establishment Clause goes anywhere. In fact as solid a case (not very) can be made that an exemption for religious organizations of that nature violates the clause.



I wasn't aware that Congress was responsible for making laws for the individual states.  In point of fact I rather thought it was other.

And please, spare us the tone.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, you spare us.  You're a ******* hypocrite who sees any argument counter to yours as "idiocy".  So, with or without contraceptives, go frig yourself.  (It's your choice, but I'm not paying the bill).



I haven't seen a good argument on the matter. I've seen a lot of weak ones. It's that simple, and why I'm saying that this will not play well for the GOP. I was specifically referring to this "The President doesn't respect the constitution" canard that seems to be the last resort of people incapable of actually forming any sort of reasonable argument. Frankly, I should be happy people make that argument, because if that's all they've got, than the other side is doing something right.

Frankly, I'd rather foot the bill for contraceptives for all who want them than foot the bill for unplanned pregrancies, because that bill is a hell of a lot higher, and the consequences of not paying for the former is in fact the latter. That's as simple as I can make it.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that Congress was responsible for making laws for the individual states.  In point of fact I rather thought it was other.



It's neither, nor did I suggest any such thing. What I said was that given provisions similar exist at state level and don't seem to run afoul of the US Constitution, there's no reason to believe that a federal law of the same nature would.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2012)

I was not going to post this, but the subject has been brought up.

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2012/03/crisis-facing-america-rush-limbaugh.html

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

*The Crisis Facing America: Rush Limbaugh*
...of greater significance than the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Ok.  Firstly a disclosure.  I don't much like Rush Limbaugh.

But that being said...

According to plannedparenthood.org, the cost of birth control pills in the United States are between $15 and $50 per month.

Again, according to plannedparenthood.org, the cost of condoms are about $1.00 each, though they may be obtained for free.

Alright now.  These are simply facts.  No judgments, no commentary - the straight goods from what appears to be a reputable source.

Now.

Then.

Let's talk, for a moment - like adults - about the whole Rush Limbaugh debacle in the U.S.

Rush got himself pilloried by most of the msm, and now by Barack Obama himself, for criticizing Sandra Fluke, who was a young student testifying before Congress on how many students have trouble making ends meet without health care covering birth control.

She gave evidence that:

    *"Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy."*  (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception)

Going further, she said:

    *“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing."*

So.

Then.

The story goes that Rush Limbaugh then said that she effectively wants other people to pay her for having a lot of sex.. and he went further and called her a "slut".

And the MSM went wild.

But here's the story that no one in the MSM comments upon - which, is the point that Limbaugh was making - albeit like an ignorant drunken frat boy.

Giving Ms. Fluke the benefit of any doubt - let's say that students are using the $50.00 per month birth control - that amounts to $600 per year.  Max.

So.

Then - that means that, the balance of condom use, presumably to prevent STD's - amounts to over $400.00 per year.  Let's give her the benefit of the doubt - and call it just $400.00.

And let's give her the benefit of the doubt, again, and assume that there is no availability of free condoms in campus health clinics and the like.

*So - then.. at $1.00 a shot, that means, that, according to Ms. Fluke, perhaps 45% of Georgetown University women are having sex every day of the year, and twice a day 35 days of the year.*

Damn.

Kinda makes me wish I didn't attend University of British Columbia.

Well.  Make your own judgment on either the truth of her statement, or, alternatively, the sympathy you might have for women who are having a tough time making ends meet due to those circumstances...  I won't offer a single opinion of my own - as stated, just setting out the facts.

Now.

Going further.

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer.  He's not an elected politician of any stripe, he, by design, is an entertainer.  Like Lennie Bruce.  Like George Carlin.  Or.  Like Bill Maher.

So, when most normal people hear Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt - well, we don't lose our minds, we don't start screaming for boycotts of his advertisers, we take him for what he is.

A glorified court jester.  An affable buffoon.

Yet.

Rush Limbaugh apparently, is worthy of non-stop media attention, and, in fact, the specific attention of the President of the United States of America - Barack Obama - who not only takes time out of his busy day  to comment on how the right to free expression doesn't extend to Rush Limbaugh.  And in fact, he takes time to telephone Sandra Fluke to console her and offer his support.

Really?

Hmm.

Well - in fairness to the President, it's not like there's much else that might occupy his attention:

    Iran's chilling warning: We’ll strike first if we feel we are about to be attacked

    'Extreme' Poverty in US Has More Than Doubled, Study Says

    Jobless figures tipped to rise

    Worries mount high gas prices will derail recovery

    Talk of US military in Syria divides Congress

    Foreclosures in February up 20% Over Year Earlier

    A looming US debt crisis?

    U.S. Needs Immigration Reform 

    ‎Holder Questioned About Agent Zapata Murder's Link to Fast & Furious

    U.S. Fed Flying Blind


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2012)

I think your numbers are off.  It's 3000$ during law school.  And she said "can" cost.  Law school length "can" be longer than 3 years.  Factor in the cost of seeing a doctor for the prescription and the cost can rise.  My guess is that she was stating the higher end of costs.  And some birth control methods cost more, like injections etc.  I know some people can't take the pill for medical reasons.

And it isn't that Rush was critical of her.  He beat a dead horse repeatedly night after night calling her innappropriate things and going way too far.  And he brought this to light in a very public way.  So yeah, of course the President was going to respond.  The MSM were not the only people to react.  Sponsors, the republicans etc etc.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2012)

Rush Limbaugh is a blithering shill, and should not be paid any heed.


----------



## Haletown (8 Mar 2012)

soooooooo . .  getting back to the election  . . .   in exactly 8 months today we will actually know who won - barring any hanging chads, robocalls or whatever the US equivalent will be.

If Gallup is right, then POTUS Obama will join the Jimmy Carter Club

"U.S. Unemployment Up in February
Underemployment is 19.1%, up from 18.7% in January
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153161/Unemployment-February.aspx


If gas pump prices continue to rise, then POTUS Obama will join the Jimmy Carter Club.

If the MSM stays compliant and protects POTUS Obama, if they continue to unvet his past, refuse to ask tough questions, further refuse to ask tougher follow up questions, then POTUS Obama will get his second term.

I do not know what will happen.  His Hope & Change bubble remains largely intact and his political skills, especially his oratorical and teleprompter skills are a major positive factor for him.  

If the GOP run a disciplined campaign and just hammer away at the economy & the debt, they have a chance to defeat him.  Last go-round POTUS Obama, the "I vote present" Senator did not have a record to run against. 

This time he has a record he cannot run on, that he must run away from,  so he will invent some new thingy to replace Hopey & Changey and try to  divert attention away from what he has done to what he might do if given four more years.

The next 8 months will be the political version of playoff hockey.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> soooooooo . .  getting back to the election  . . .   in exactly 8 months today we will actually know who won - barring any hanging chads, robocalls or whatever the US equivalent will be.
> 
> 
> The next 8 months will be the political version of playoff hockey.



Which leads to the question:  Which side will be coached by Don CHerry and get called for too many men on the ice, losing the game and the series?

Since my impression of this go round is less that anyone will win the presidency than that the other side will lose it.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Mar 2012)

> Rush got himself pilloried by most of the msm, and now by Barack Obama himself, for criticizing Sandra Fluke, who was a young student testifying before Congress on how many students have trouble making ends meet without health care covering birth control.



And of course, she has been portrayed as "just a poor, innocent college student" - nooo, that's not disingenuous...

http://www.thomas-purcell.com/2012/03/fluke-is-no-fluke.html



> Having gone on information junket trips and been involved with how those sorts of things work, I can tell you that not just anyone is picked to have a seat before a congressional hearing and have a say on particular issues. Your name typically is submitted by people that either have a lot of drag with Congress or you are well known enough about a subject to be considered.
> 
> 
> That’s why it came as a bit of a surprise when a supposed innocent college student by the name of Sandra Fluke sat before Congress and testified about the horrors of having to pay for her own contraception pills. The media types and pundits portrayed her as a struggling young student being victimized by the insurance companies and forced into poverty by the fact that she is a woman living in a man’s world.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (8 Mar 2012)

also interesting was that although it appeared she was speaking at a Congressional Hearing, it was actually a press conference set up by the DNC to look like a Hearing.

More smoke & mirrors, more MSM  non-reporting.

Excellent stick handling by the Democrats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> also interesting was that although it appeared she was speaking at a Congressional Hearing, it was actually a press conference set up by the DNC to look like a Hearing.
> 
> More smoke & mirrors, more MSM  non-reporting.
> 
> Excellent stick handling by the Democrats.




I did not understand that; I wan't following the story, except in passing, but I thought, based on CNN and Fox reports, that it was a legitimate congressional hearing ... so, yes: good news management (AKA propaganda) by the Democrats.


----------



## Haletown (8 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I did not understand that; I wan't following the story, except in passing, but I thought, based on CNN and Fox reports, that it was a legitimate congressional hearing ... so, yes: good news management (AKA propaganda) by the Democrats.



Good, aren't they. 

Made it look all legit, the MSM went along with it, leading people to think it was something it wasn't.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> And of course, she has been portrayed as "just a poor, innocent college student" - nooo, that's not disingenuous...
> 
> http://www.thomas-purcell.com/2012/03/fluke-is-no-fluke.html



DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!

Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Mar 2012)

Of course. We expected nothing less from you.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!
> 
> Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.



Aren't you deployed or something.  Quit posting so much.


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Of course. We expected nothing less from you.



Likewise. Honestly, if this is what the GOP diehards on the far right have to present to the mushy middle undecided voters, then I will have to forgive the Democrats and the Obama campaign for being a little smug.  If this what they're going to make the focal point of politics going into a campaign, I suspect they're going to get walloped. And it's not as though, as Rifleman62 pointed out, there's nothing else to talk about. The phrase "Epic Fail" comes to mind. Yes, they'll be a hit with a certain set of people, but that sort of rant caters solely to a certain subset of the electorate that's not in any danger of voting Dem. To the average person reading that, suggesting that "communism" is some sort of threat to America is likely to be laughed off, and deservedly so. Likewise the attack on unions. This sort of stuff is essentially aimed at an echo chamber. A bunch of people who talk nonsense they all believe so they can nod at each other approvingly. It's not going to convince any of those people who actually matter of anything because it comes off as devoid of any real value. That's what people like David Frum have been bemoaning lately. I get it, I really do. They're watching their party start to tilt toward a fringe that can't win back the average man in the street, because it's coming off so ridiculous. To my original point, I cannot believe that this (and other ridiculous related legislation proposed in various states on the same issue) is the hill the GOP has chosen to die on. If they actually decided to, they could give President Obama a run for his money this year, but it seems to me that they're determined to find as many ways as possible to lose spectacularly. And they really don't need to. They could do so much better. There are good issues that both sides could actually work on and be constructive and maybe change the way people view politicians, because right now that view is not at all favourable and this isn't the answer.

Infanteer,- it's midnight, and the weekend, and I'm wired on caffeine for some stupid reason. Mainly so I can be up to talk to my wife.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> DAMMIT! ALL I NEEDED WAS "KENYAN ANTI-COLONIAL VIEWS" TO GET A FULL CARD BINGO IN RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE BINGO!
> 
> Seriously, the screwy definition of social justice, the ad hominem about who she is (does it matter how old she is or her background?), the fact that she herself somewhat well off - that doesn't take away from the situation of many, many other American women, the nonsense about unions that comes straight out of the paranoid Glenn Beck playbook... it's a long winded tirade that doesn't actually do a particularly good job of addressing any issues raised.



Ok,...I just want to clarify something here. I usually find your posts refreshingly funny in how you portray everything YOU think is good, and righteous, is the high road.   This post however has pushed waaaaay past funny, you are now saying that misrepresentation [ergo, lying] is acceptable if that particular message passes Redeye's sniff test??  Are you sure you're in the right business??


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> .... the ad hominem ....


For someone who decries right-wing name calling, you are unfailing in calling anyone who disagrees with you, about any issue, "idiots."     :boring:


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Which leads to the question:  Which side will be coached by Don CHerry and get called for too many men on the ice, losing the game and the series?


Awesome analogy!  (And I'm sure that Bruins fans everywhere are broiling now!) ;D


----------



## Redeye (8 Mar 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ok,...I just want to clarify something here. I usually find your posts refreshingly funny in how you portray everything YOU think is good, and righteous, is the high road.   This post however has pushed waaaaay past funny, you are now saying that misrepresentation [ergo, lying] is acceptable if that particular message passes Redeye's sniff test??  Are you sure you're in the right business??



I don't think there was misrepresentation - Fluke's statements were relatively reasonable (including the amounts involved, based on different types of birth control, because $15 generics from PP (which the right is attacking as well, as you may recall) may not be the answer for everyone. I don't see anything so serious as to justify the attacks on the messenger. She related stories of people she knew, and if they're unreasonable, then that's another matter. On the high level, though, why is this such a big issue when there's so much more going on in the world? What is the GOP going to gain from this?! In strategic terms I cannot see any win for them.

What do the Republicans gain from going down this road? That's what makes no sense to me.


----------



## Haletown (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't think there was misrepresentation - Fluke's statements were relatively reasonable (including the amounts involved, based on different types of birth control,



She used the ludicrous  figure of $3000 over the course of studying law at Georgetown  - that is $3000 over 3 years and that is utterly ridiculous, a pathetic attempt to torque a storyline.

That you can state that you find her cost figures for the  purchasing of contraception to be "relatively reasonable " explains  how you can be so enthralled with the performance of POTUS Obama.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> 1st Amendment.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



Seems crystal clear; the State (federal or otherwise) cannot tell a religious organization what to do or how to do it. If a member of a religion chooses to follow or violate the tenants of the religion, that is also not the perview of the State. A nominal Catholic who chooses to violate the teachings of the Church WRT contraceptives will have to deal with that on their own, including purchasing contraceptives out of their own pockets or choosing to work for a secular employer who will include that in their health care package.

The spiritual aspects of such decisions are between the person and their clergy, or the person and their God(s)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2012)

I love the 'Ignore' feature  ;D


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



The problem with the issue is that it infringes on the rights of the individual employees who work for the organization, who may not be part of that religious organization. Catholic hospitals and Universities that employ non-Catholics. By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.

As for the States requiring religious organizations to cover contraception, it doesn't violate the establishment clause (as this clause does not apply to the argument), and has stood up to challenge under the free exercise clause at every level.

But all of this is irrelevant anyway, since a supposed work around in sheep's clothing has been developed.

And an interesting side bar on the whole Limbaugh rant, a couple of pundits on an NPR talk show today made the point that he essentially sabotaged the GOP's use of the issue by taking it from a religious issue to a woman's issue.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> The problem with the issue is that it infringes on the rights of the individual employees who work for the organization, who may not be part of that religious organization. Catholic hospitals and Universities that employ non-Catholics. By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.


Any person who works for, eg. a Jewish Hospital, and brings bacon sandwiches into work every day, is nothing but a rabble-rouser.  Same with a person who would work for a Catholic institution and then "demand" as a "right" something that the Church finds "sinful" (rightly or wrongly).  

That person isn't forced to work for that institution, so I find that argument to be somewhat of a stretch.


----------



## Jed (8 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's a reason Revenue Canada doesn't chase tax cheats except big fish. It's not worth it. They came after me for a full accounting of moving expenses last year, presumably thinking I'd claimed an excessive amount and they'd get more money out of me. I don't know how much civil service time was wasted, but it turned out that I'd estimated some costs conservatively, and when pushed to be detailed, they owed me a couple hundred bucks.
> ...



Rather naive of you, Redeye. The buggers zero in on the small fish.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2012)

Andrew Breitbart strikes from the grave. He had actually announced he had discovered video that would expose President Obama's past during his speech at CPAC 2012, I am presuming this is it. What is even more interesting is the comment about how the tape had been hidden during 2008 (which of course brings up the question yet again about what else has been hidden besides academic transcripts, speeches given at gatherings that may or may not have been in support of Palestinian terrorists etc.)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape



> *OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof*
> 
> by Ben Shapiro 22 hours ago 3940 post a comment
> Below is footage of Barack Obama praising and hugging Professor Derrick Bell.  It was spliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.”
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2012)

>Frankly, I'd rather foot the bill for contraceptives for all who want them than foot the bill for unplanned pregrancies, because that bill is a hell of a lot higher, and the consequences of not paying for the former is in fact the latter. That's as simple as I can make it.

That is probably the most absurd argument (supposition, really) making the rounds: that in the absence of someone else paying the bill, people not already at risk are going to willy-nilly risk becoming pregnant.  I propose an alternate hypothesis: people responsible enough to hold down a job that either provides health insurance or pays well enough to allow them to purchase health insurance directly are also inherently inclined by that sense of responsibility to take care of their contraception needs in the absence of contraception coverage; people inclined to be careless will not suddenly become more responsible any more than they take advantage of any other preventive health care provided "free" - they will continue to show up only after a problem has presented itself.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2012)

>(does it matter how old she is or her background?), 

It matters.  "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy

She is a bullsh!tter, and a servant of bullsh!tters.  Bullsh!tters poison the well of public debate by not finding honest ways of approaching the discussion.  IMHEO, she is many worse things than merely a "slut"; promiscuity - which is all being a "slut" is, notwithstanding the fact some people probably dislike the word purely for its acoustic impact - is no big deal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2012)

>By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.

For f*ck's sakes, does anyone use their head for anything but ballast anymore?  Catholic institutions are not denying contraception to their employees; anyone is free to acquire contraception.  Will you follow your logic consistently to the conclusion that the Government of BC denies me vision care because the cost of my examinations and hardware is not covered at public expense?


----------



## Jed (8 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >(does it matter how old she is or her background?),
> 
> It matters.  "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy
> 
> She is a bullsh!tter, and a servant of bullsh!tters.  Bullsh!tters poison the well of public debate by not finding honest ways of approaching the discussion.  IMHEO, she is many worse things than merely a "slut"; promiscuity - which is all being a "slut" is, notwithstanding the fact some people probably dislike the word purely for its acoustic impact - is no big deal.



Well that will get them frothing at the mouth! I agree with you though. ;D
op:


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That person isn't forced to work for that institution, so I find that argument to be somewhat of a stretch.



It may be a stretch but that's what it boils down to. The rights of the religious group vs the rights of the individual.

And the courts have ruled that similar mandates do not violate the free exercise clause.

But again, it's all moot anyway. 

If Obama is reelected, you get birth control.  :nod:

If Romney is elected, you may get it, maybe not.  :dunno:

If Santorum, Gingrich or Paul get in, affordable health care becomes a footnote in history before it even gets off the ground.  anic:


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> \does anyone use their head for anything but ballast anymore?



Actually, I use mine to keep my ears apart.  ;D




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Catholic institutions are not denying contraception to their employees



I never said they were denying employees contraception.

They are denying coverage through their health insurance programs.


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

And since the world is going to end in December 2012, the whole election becomes moot. ;D


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And since the world is going to end in December 2012, the whole election becomes moot. ;D



Not before someone is chosen though.................


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not before someone is chosen though.................



True. But if Obama wins, he becomes a one term prez, Mitch McConnell's dream comes true.

Anybody else wins, they don't get sworn in. 

And all is well and good. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2012)

C

The rights of the individual are well taken care of. If you choose to follow a religious faith, then that is your affair. If you choose to be employed by a faith based organization, then you, yourself, have decided to join hands with them.

No one who chooses to work for a Catholic hospital can claim they are not aware of the fact this is a faith based organization, nor should they be able to claim ignorance of the nature of the organization and its policy on various issues. The last time I checked, Catholic hospitals don't draft employees nor do they press gang them, so everyone there is there by choice.

Anyone who works for any faith based organization and chooses to publically oppose or flout their policies is only exercising their right to be an idiot and an a** in public.


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> C
> 
> The rights of the individual are well taken care of. If you choose to follow a religious faith, then that is your affair. If you choose to be employed by a faith based organization, then you, yourself, have decided to join hands with them.
> 
> ...



All true.

But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.

But again, this is all settled law at the state level, as there were laws brought in by many states (as part of GOP majorities mind you) as long as 10 years ago. So what makes a Federal mandate any different? Simply because it was brought in by Obama?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.



Many business can and do dictate what employees can and cannot do outside of work because it may negatively affect the business. Spiritual matters are best left to the individuals IMO, and most American Catholics have decided to quietly ignore the teachings of the Church in this matter and to privately purchase contraceptives. This is the "good" solution, where individuals make their spiritual choices and can deal with any spiritual consequences on their own. 

For anyone to suggest that the Church or its institutions *must* act against its own teachings is both directly in violation of the Constitution, and also incredibly arrogant, stupid and insulting besides.



> But again, this is all settled law at the state level, as there were laws brought in by many states (as part of GOP majorities mind you) as long as 10 years ago. So what makes a Federal mandate any different? Simply because it was brought in by Obama?



It would be interesting to look at the exact wording of these laws to see if they could survive a constitutional challenge (maybe no one has ever actually done so). 

As well, the Federal system is designed in part to act as an incubator. States are supposed to set their laws independently of the Federal government, and it was thought that each State could choose the laws that were applicable to their unique situations. Good laws should eventually be adopted by other States once they saw they worked, while poor laws would be dropped or at least not adopted elsewhere. Further reading of the Constitution (as well as associated documents like the Federalist Papers) will expand on the concept. In particular the Tenth Amendment severely restricts the powers of the Federal government:

*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*

I'm with James Madison here; contraception is one of those things reserved to "the people".


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2012)

>They are denying coverage through their health insurance programs. 

Ah.  Of course.  Just as my employer denies me $2.00/hour more than I currently earn.  Or $2.50.  Or any other arbitrary compensation.  Assuming the universe to be boundless, I am denied an infinite number of things.


----------



## larry Strong (9 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> All true.
> 
> But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.



Have you ever had to pee in a cup, or take an alcohol breath test? That's a case of employer dictating exactly what you can and cannot do outside your place of work


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2012)

It is official . .  . Fluke is a joke


----------



## Redeye (9 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Andrew Breitbart strikes from the grave.



And the world including right leaning media like the Telegraph laughed and said, "That's it?!" Not exactly anything important, at least not to that echo chamber. 

At least his legacy in death is to be remembered as he was in life: a worthless sack of crap who contributed nothing positive to civil society, just more noise and more poisoned wells. And before anyone gets uppity about dancing his grave I suggest you check out his response to the death of Ted Kennedy. I'm pleased to hear as well that Shirley Sherrod, the civil servant whose career was destroyed by his antics, intended to continue to pursue her lawsuit against his estate.

I feel sorry for his four children but I'm pleased we've heard his last pathetic rant. Sadly his followers remain but hopefully they'll do better.


----------



## Redeye (9 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But again, it's all moot anyway.



This sums it all up rather perfectly. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It's going to wind up a moot point.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And the world including right leaning media like the Telegraph laughed and said, "That's it?!" Not exactly anything important, at least not to that echo chamber.
> 
> At least his legacy in death is to be remembered as he was in life: a worthless sack of crap who contributed nothing positive to civil society, just more noise and more poisoned wells. And before anyone gets uppity about dancing his grave I suggest you check out his response to the death of Ted Kennedy. I'm pleased to hear as well that Shirley Sherrod, the civil servant whose career was destroyed by his antics, intended to continue to pursue her lawsuit against his estate.
> 
> I feel sorry for his four children but I'm pleased we've heard his last pathetic rant. Sadly his followers remain but hopefully they'll do better.



Pretty outragous post even for you Redeye.You evidently didnt care for Breitbart's politics but many of us thought he was a champion for democracy and truth.In short a patriot. I dont much care for the politics of the American left. I never thought I would see the day that the Communist Party USA and a major political party seemed to have the same agenda.I definitely dont want 4 more years of the current Chicago crowd because they are tearing down the country they swore an oath to protect and serve.


----------



## TheHead (9 Mar 2012)

Andrew made a name for himself by smearing others and lying just to get his face TV.  A true patriot huh?

One should only speak good of the dead.   He's dead - good.


----------



## Redeye (9 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pretty outragous post even for you Redeye.You evidently didnt care for Breitbart's politics but many of us thought he was a champion for democracy and truth.In short a patriot. I dont much care for the politics of the American left. I never thought I would see the day that the Communist Party USA and a major political party seemed to have the same agenda.I definitely dont want 4 more years of the current Chicago crowd because they are tearing down the country they swore an oath to protect and serve.



Democracy and truth? James O'Keefe's antics were "democracy and truth"? Smearing a woman with a highly edited video to make her out to be something she was not, and ruining her career in the process was "democracy and truth"? You have a funny definition of the words, sir, one that does not in any way match mine. Breitbart and his ilk are self-serving scoundrels. Patriots? Of what? And idealized ultraconservative America that doesn't exist and never will? Last time I checked, slandering someone and ruining their career isn't patriotic. Lying about an organization's activities and misrepresenting your "research" isn't patriotic. Actually, that sounds like the kind of games played by regimes utterly unlike what anyone would want America to look like.

You haven't seen the day where the Communist Party USA and a major party have the same agenda anymore than I could say that the other major party is starting to look a lot like a fascist party, which is the siren call of the loathsome ultra left. Neither are particularly true, neither are particularly likely. The idea that they're "tearing down the country" strikes me as ludicrous hyperbole. They're doing what a majority of the citizens of that country elected them to do - and frankly, moving to debate to such hyperbole is going to make it that much easier for them to get elected again, because without reasonable, well constructed arguments that appeal to those in the middle, the GOP has no hope. And they seem to be strangely unwilling to craft those arguments, preferring the terrain they've chosen, which appeals only to those firmly in their camp. They do so at their own peril.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Mar 2012)

> Have you ever had to pee in a cup, or take an alcohol breath test? That's a case of employer dictating exactly what you can and cannot do outside your place of work



I can't speak for the rest of the country but there are companies in Phoenix that don't allow tobacco use. Their insurance rates are significantly lower- you agree to that when you are hired and they do testing for tobacco


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Mar 2012)

Clearly some people entirely missed the point of the two Breitbart videos mentioned above.  The Sherrod video was never about Sherrod or an attempt to smear her as a racist - Breitbart said as much - but was intended to reveal the reaction of the audience at a specific point in her presentation.  Likewise, the Bell/Obama video seems less about the two of them, and more about prompt questions why people thought it had to be buried and who contributed to burying it.  Breitbart came close to being a bullsh!tter, and arguably did poison the well somewhat, but there was always the element of useful truth: he didn't seem to be concerned with fixing and polarizing people so much as illustrating the hypocrisy within their own communities of political fellow travellers.

All the charges levelled (and being levelled) against Breitbart for his standard of behaviour are novel only with respect to who is levelling them.  The in-your-face, aggressive, sh!t-stirring behaviour was not novel; there was plenty of it from about Nov 2000 onward and certainly also during previous decades.  There have been many calls - repeatedly - for civility, decency, non-violence, etc whenever something new emanates from a correspondent, pundit, talking/shouting head on "the right" that outrages or humiliates those on "the left".  Are the people who make those calls and then turn about and engage in exactly the same behaviour (as they did for pretty much the preceding two presidential administrations) really that self-blind to themselves and/or the people they support?

People are angry at Breitbart because he was almost the first to really indulge in what is routine on the political left.  No-one likes to lose a monopoly.  They are smug and vindictive and vicious now in their fear because they hope he was also the last.  However, I think that sh!t will never go back in the horse.  It isn't that the public arena suddenly became uncivil with the advent of people like Breitbart and Rush; it is that the long-standing monopoly on incivility was broken.  "Righties" were always sort of apathetic and disinclined to organize and agitate; the WWW and growth of competing media organizations has undone that.  The 40% of people on "the right" who could be relied upon to be indifferent or at least incapable of finding their own echo chamber have found one and essentially become lost/immune to the propaganda of "the left".  That loss of influence alone is a major blow; it is compounded because there is not merely the loss of ability to push forward, there is a movement pushing back.


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Andrew made a name for himself by smearing others and lying just to get his face TV.  A true patriot huh?
> 
> One should only speak good of the dead.   He's dead - good.



Says so much about your character & morality.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ..... the political left.  No-one likes to lose a monopoly.  They are smug and vindictive...


I've had the opportunity to work with a number of Canadian university professors (mostly Politics/International Relations and History) over the past couple of years; this describes them to a 't'


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2012)

Saw a clip of this yesterday. Same old same old. Along the lines of "We didn't know there were all these problems. Where do we start: priority 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  or where?" Too bad the cast of actual characters did not include George Bush, chuckling deviously how he personally insured the USA was in such a deep hole that Obama was bound to fail.

I can now hear Harry Truman when he became President. "Why do we have this idiotic world war? It's not my fault".


> Clip: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0308/New-Obama-campaign-video-what-it-may-say-about-his-reelection-strategy
> 
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0308/New-Obama-campaign-video-what-it-may-say-about-his-reelection-strategy
> ...



This is hilarious. Probably 99% of Americans would make the same decision:



> Then, suddenly, it is years later, and VP Joe Biden is talking about the bin Laden raid. “We had to make a decision, go or not go,” says Biden, over a shot of Obama framed alone against a White House window.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2012)

Speaking of "smug and vindictive," here he is, in spades, with his uniquely self-satisfied, parochial, oh so Canadian view of the GP, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/watching-a-once-great-party-circle-the-drain/article2363134/


> *JEFFREY SIMPSON*
> Watching a once-great party circle the drain
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> ...




I am not overly impressed with the current crop of presidential contenders but I also recall when some political lightweights entered the lists: neophytes and dilettantes like John F Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barak Obama come to mind.

The GOP is being torn between two poles: the _establishment_ and the (poorly named) _neo Cons_ - much as the Democrats were torn a generation or two ago between the New England _establishment_ and the _Dixiecrats_; the Democrats survived, even prospered - the GOP split is not as wide as that between the Adlai Stevenson and George Wallace _wings_ of the Democratic Party.

This is an interesting but not, in my mind, important election. America's problems, some of which Simpson does enumerate, must be solved by the congress, by state and local governments and by bureaucrats led by the likes of Ben Bernanke ~ they, not the POTUS, will lead the nation in whichever direction it wants (but not, necessarily, *needs*) to go.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am not overly impressed with the current crop of presidential contenders but I also recall when some political lightweights entered the lists: neophytes and dilettantes like John F Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barak Obama come to mind.



Very good point: even the current president was a virtual unknown a mere two years before he ascended to office.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2012)

This is hilarious. also:



> The auto bailout gets big play in the trailer. It has former administration consumer official Elizabeth Warren saying, “If the auto industry goes down, what happens to America’s manufacturing base, what happens to jobs in America, what happens to the whole Midwest?”



By the auto industry, they mean GM and Chrysler????

Ford, Honda, BMW, Toyota, VW, Acura, etc, etc, etc, did not need to "Saved".


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Mar 2012)

Another good point about Ford.  I distinctly remember how significant it seemed at the time that Ford didn't need any bailing out.


----------



## Redeye (9 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Very good point: even the current president was a virtual unknown a mere two years before he ascended to office.



Four years, actually. He came to prominence in the Democratic Party after delivering a speech at the 2004 DNC.

To expand on my last post, why isn't the GOP working on a platform with a broad appeal? Going directly at the incumbent seems a losing proposition, but why not produce a more appealing economic agenda? There's loads to work with, like targeting ridiculous and disjointed regulations that increase costs to businesses but would appeal to a larger base - things like pursuing regulatory harmonization amongst the States and with Canada for example. That would attract the attention of fence sitters I'd wager and be hard to argue against. That sort of thing would make for a competitive race far more than going down limited appeal socially conservative rabbit holes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Four years, actually. He came to prominence in the Democratic Party after delivering a speech at the 2004 DNC.
> 
> To expand on my last post, why isn't the GOP working on a platform with a broad appeal? Going directly at the incumbent seems a losing proposition, but why not produce a more appealing economic agenda? There's loads to work with, like targeting ridiculous and disjointed regulations that increase costs to businesses but would appeal to a larger base - things like pursuing regulatory harmonization amongst the States and with Canada for example. That would attract the attention of fence sitters I'd wager and be hard to argue against. That sort of thing would make for a competitive race far more than going down limited appeal socially conservative rabbit holes.




Because this is a party primary so, just as Clinton and Obama had to promise the loony left the moon in the 2008 Democratic primary so Romney, Santorum _et al_ must appeal to the basest of the GOP's base. There will be plenty of time, after the convention, to attack Obama and the Democrats on the sort of substantive issues that will appeal to _Reagan Democrats_ and independents.


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Because this is a party primary so, just as Clinton and Obama had to promise the loony left the moon in the 2008 Democratic primary so Romney, Santorum _et al_ must appeal to the basest of the GOP's base. There will be plenty of time, after the convention, to attack Obama and the Democrats on the sort of substantive issues that will appeal to _Reagan Democrats_ and independents.



Agreed.  

If this was real combat, the current level of activity would be equal to some patrol level skirmishing, the odd bit of H&I fires and a lot of recce work.  Lots of camouflage and deception activities are happening and the main campaign is still deep in the bowels of staff officers working out the details.

If weather is the big future combat unknown, in politics it is the economy and if you are able to forecast where the economy will be in October/November then you are smart enough to make so much money in the stock market you would care less who wins.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2012)

And of course the "long term forecast" isn't very good at all:

http://blog.american.com/2012/03/the-real-unemployment-rate-its-sure-isnt-8-3/



> *The real unemployment rate? It sure isn’t 8.3%*
> 
> By James Pethokoukis
> March 9, 2012, 10:51 am
> ...



And of course more and more Americans are ignoring the "official" rate since they see themselves and their neighbours in dire difficulty (between unemployment, rising fuel costs and inflation on food items, they are worse off than ever). Upthread, I posted a Democrat pollster's warning that Americans are unreceptive to the Administration messaging that things are getting better, and historically, most Americans are not big fans of the "class warfare" meme that the Administration has been pushing. (The highly visible crony capitalism, where the benificiaries of Administration bailouts, loans and favours like Wall Street, GM and the "Green" industry are indeed the 1% certainly dosn't help the class warfare rhetoric gain any traction).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2012)

Part 1 of 2

If Reihan Salam is correct, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_, in saying that Mainstream Republicans" are defecting and will continue to defect to the Democrats, then my _guesstimate_ is that the next "act" in the American political drama is the disintegration of the Democratic Party:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137287/reihan-salam/the-missing-middle-in-american-politics?page=show


> The Missing Middle in American Politics
> *How Moderate Republicans Became Extinct*
> 
> By Reihan Salam
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2012)

Part 2 of 2



> WEAK TEA
> 
> The rise of the Tea Party movement briefly seemed like an intriguing exception to this general drift. The movement has often been interpreted as a brand of populist conservatism virtually indistinguishable from the supply-side conservatism of the Reagan era. But supply-side economics was an optimistic creed that rejected the idea of the market as a zero-sum game and celebrated a vision of a flourishing society in which everyone should, could, and would be richer, freer, and happier if taxes were low and GDP growth robust. The Tea Party movement offers a far less sunny worldview. Far from inheriting the optimism of the Reagan-era supply-siders, the Tea Party shares more with the Old Right, the earlier form of conservatism that Reaganite supply-siders derided as “root-canal economics” for its emphasis on spending cuts -- and, in some cases, tax increases -- as instruments of hard-nosed fiscal discipline. Like the Old Right, the Tea Party conceives of the United States as divided between those who work hard and play by the rules and those who game the system, whether by engaging in petty welfare fraud or by seeking government favors through lobbying and campaign contributions.
> 
> ...



_Reihan Salam is a Policy Advisor at e21. Earlier on, he worked as a reporter-researcher at The New Republic, a national security research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, an editorial researcher and junior op-ed editor at The New York Times, a producer at NBC News, and an associate editor at The Atlantic. Mr. Salam is a fellow at the New America Foundation and he writes regularly for Forbes.com, The Daily Beast, and National Review Online. He is the co-author, with Ross Douthat, of Grand New Party. He is also a contributing editor at National Affairs and editor of The American Scene, and he has served as a political commentator on a number of radio and television programs. Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, he attended New York city public schools._


A Democratic Party that tries to embrace the hard, socialist left and everything through to and including the former GOP moderates will explode, it will be shattered by the force of its own internal contradictions. The result will, after all the dust has settled:

On the left: a semi-socialist, big government, tax and spend *Democratic Party* ... In the centre: a moderate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative *Republican Party* ... On the right: a Constitutionally _orthodox_ and socially conservative *Tea Party*.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the left: a semi-socialist, big government, tax and spend *Democratic Party* ... In the centre: a moderate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative *Republican Party* ... On the right: a Constitutionally _orthodox_ and socially conservative *Tea Party*.


Interesting.


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >They are denying coverage through their health insurance programs.
> 
> Ah.  Of course.  Just as my employer denies me $2.00/hour more than I currently earn.  Or $2.50.  Or any other arbitrary compensation.  Assuming the universe to be boundless, I am denied an infinite number of things.



Accord me the respect to not play pot and kettle.


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The GOP is being torn between two poles: the _establishment_ and the (poorly named) _neo Cons_ - much as the Democrats were torn a generation or two ago between the New England _establishment_ and the _Dixiecrats_; the Democrats survived, even prospered - the GOP split is not as wide as that between the Adlai Stevenson and George Wallace _wings_ of the Democratic Party.



My read is that even the neo-cons have decided to sit this one out. The rift seems to be establishment vs socially conservative right wing.

Either way you cut it though, the GOP is taking a beating in the opinion polls amongst key groups they need to win.


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2012)

The Canadian media goes Mach 1 over  scooped chopper flight  . . .  can you imagine the hysterics if  PM Harper pulled even a fraction of this story.

"The U.S. Air Force is pulling nine cargo aircraft from military operations to support President Barrack Obama’s stepped-up visits to campaign events.

The five medium-capacity C-130s and four heavyweight C-17s will be used to ferry security vehicles, armored limousines and communications gear into cities ahead of Obama’s campaign appearances.

In the months before November, the president is expected to fly into multiple cities per week, and speak at multiple sites per day. On Mar. 8, for example, the president will fly to Richmond, and then drive over to a Rolls-Royce aircraft-parts factory. That evening, he’ll fly down to Houston, Texas.

His wife, the Vice President and many of his cabinet secretaries are using the Air Force’s fleet of VIP aircraft to visit more states as the election season speeds up.

The nine cargo aircraft will begin operations in April, said Maj. Michelle Lai, communications officer for the Air Force’s 89th Airlift Wing. "





http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/obamas-campaign-gets-more-usaf-aircraft/


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The Canadian media goes Mach 1 over  scooped chopper flight  . . .  can you imagine the hysterics if  PM Harper pulled even a fraction of this story.
> 
> "The U.S. Air Force is pulling nine cargo aircraft from military operations to support President Barrack Obama’s stepped-up visits to campaign events.
> ...
> ...



Boy, that is rich.  I hope all the MSM, Lefty thinking, PM Harper hating, President Obama loving folks out there don't explode or start acting like the robot from 'Lost in Space'.


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2012)

I would suspect that's pretty normal for the Secret Service to do for any POTUS


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I would suspect that's pretty normal for the Secret Service to do for any POTUS


I expect you are correct. We are pretty amateur in this respect in Canada hence all the noz the occurred wrt air transport of the MND, CDS, GG, et al.


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The Canadian media goes Mach 1 over  scooped chopper flight  . . .  can you imagine the hysterics if  PM Harper pulled even a fraction of this story.
> 
> "The U.S. Air Force is pulling nine cargo aircraft from military operations to support President Barrack Obama’s stepped-up visits to campaign events.
> 
> ...



Similar to the uproar that went out when the Sec. Service bought 2 armored tour buses after the last election. McCAin bitched that they weren't American (assembled in Canada, but the main chassis and powertrain was US built).

Turns out it was cheaper than leasing them, doing the conversions and then undoing it after the election, which is what they had done in the previous couple of elections.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Mar 2012)

Simpson et al: you guys are right; you win.  The GOP is going down the toilet.  The Republicans are unable to produce a stellar candidate such as the great luminaries Al "Temper Tantrum" Gore and John "What Yacht Taxes?" Kerry.  I suppose people have lost sight of the fact that the winner of the GOP primary will run against Barack Obama, not Jesus Christ.  And, undoubtedly the Republicans will be shellacked in the House, Senate, and all the state elections.  I guess we'll have to wait and see how bad it is.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Mar 2012)

I would like to suggest that those of you interested in the circus that is our Presidential campaign follow Real Clear Politics and Professor Sabato's Chrystal Ball.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Simpson et al: you guys are right; you win.  The GOP is going down the toilet.  The Republicans are unable to produce a stellar candidate such as the great luminaries Al "Temper Tantrum" Gore and John "What Yacht Taxes?" Kerry.  I suppose people have lost sight of the fact that the winner of the GOP primary will run against Barack Obama, not Jesus Christ.  And, undoubtedly the Republicans will be shellacked in the House, Senate, and all the state elections.  I guess we'll have to wait and see how bad it is.



 :not-again:

Nobody has said this would be a cake walk for Obama.

And yes, the Dems have had their share of dud candidates as well.

But pretty much all of the talking heads for both sides are saying that the drawn out primary is doing more harm than good. And barring a suprise candidate coming in late, Romney will be the eventual nominee. And the longer this goes on, the harder it becomes for Romney in the general election to appear as credible, when he moves back towards the center. And it's doubtful he would regain his losses with independent voters. Latest polls show him at 22% favorable with that key block.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Nobody has said this would be a cake walk for Obama.


Redeye did.  Several times.


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Redeye did.  Several times.



OK, I'm going to ignore the obvious Redeye = Nobody set-up. >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> OK, I'm going to ignore the obvious Redeye = Nobody set-up. >



Redeye is a Pod person.


----------



## Redeye (10 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Redeye did.  Several times.



Barring a change of direction in the GOP, which may happen after primaries as Mr. Campbell said, it's looking that way. At the very least the primary process is giving the DNC loads of ad material for when the campaign begins.


----------



## Haletown (10 Mar 2012)

Steyn summarizes Fluke . . . 

"No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts."



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293094/fluke-charade-mark-steyn


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2012)

This campaign ultimately will resolve whether numbers or narrative will triumph. The Democrats have chosen "class warfare" narrative as their underlying theme. Demanding "the rich" pay more taxes, berating business for not investing and the support for the "occupy" movement are all samples of the Democrat narrative. 

OTOH the economic numbers are dreadful; a simple comparison of 2007 unemployment figures (4.4%) vs the "official"(and false) 8% or the real 10% (or the even more astonishing U6 at 14%) will make it difficult for the administration to answer any criticism of their economic record. And this is not the only set of figures; sluggish GDP growth, massive increases in debt and the deficit, the wastage of taxpayer dollars via crony capitalism and inflation in fuel and food prices all paint a totally negative picture of the Administration's policies.

Unemployment and inflation is probably the key figures; regardless of how the legacy media spins the numbers, far too many people are either directly affected or know someone who is to make sunny media announcements believable. Besides, how many "recovery summers" can you have without there being any recovery? The story of the boy who cried wolf applies here as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

The economic "holy grail" is neither numbers nor narrative, it is well paid (well enough to support a lower middle class family) jobs for school leavers. Those school leavers, men, mostly, in their 20s, 30s and 40s, of all races and creeds, are a HUGE minority and they constitute a stubbornly _static_ slice of the unemployment numbers. Obama has failed them, so far. These men cannot be in Obama's favoured groups: school teachers and first responders, because they are not well enough educated ~ instead they are labourers, factory workers, would-be tradesmen and the like. Capital needs to flow into new enterprises in order to put them to work ~ something Obama's henchmen, Dodd and Franks have helped stymie.

All the talk about a "knowledge economy" and "green jobs" and so on is just fluff, all huff and puff, but there is nothing there for the male school leaver who wants to (and can) work with his hands, his brawn and his less than "well educated" common sense. In the autumn, the candidate who offers them a sensible plan to out them to work should win the election. I am about 99.99% sure Barak Obama will  not make that offer because he neither knows nor cares about them ... which is too bad because they are the "heart and soul" of his country.


----------



## Redeye (10 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A Democratic Party that tries to embrace the hard, socialist left and everything through to and including the former GOP moderates will explode, it will be shattered by the force of its own internal contradictions. The result will, after all the dust has settled:
> 
> On the left: a semi-socialist, big government, tax and spend *Democratic Party* ... In the centre: a moderate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative *Republican Party* ... On the right: a Constitutionally _orthodox_ and socially conservative *Tea Party*.



From where is this moderate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican Party emerge? They will have to find a completely new stable of candidates for that, I suspect.

As to Steyn's claim, there's nothing nuts about this at all - insurance companies have no issue funding contraception as it makes business sense for them. The issue has nothing to do with people's sex lives and everything to do with enforcing phony morality. There's no good way to frame this issue, and it's going to get the GOP nowhere.

They could, as I said, be proposing ways to reduce barriers to economic growth that are moderate, and that would probably capture independents and even some Democrats who are looking for a different tack. There's so much ridiculous regulation they could target that few people would argue over, I'd suspect. But instead, they choose not to for now. I can only wonder if they've got something like that up their sleeves.

If you're going to make the argument that "Obama has failed" those "school leavers", and then suggest that that could be to the GOP's advantage, then to at least those paying attention you have to be able to make the argument that the GOP has policy ideas that would do something different. Those school leavers, however, would in large part probably hear a lot of the usual GOP planks and not actually think it'd make them any better off. The ideas have been tried, and they've not worked. These people, for better or worse, will look through the prism of the Bush years in particular, and they'll see that all the tax cuts and deregulation did not have enough impact. What I'll wonder about is will they vote at all, or will they just become disenchanted with the system and stay home. I wonder if politics will be perceived as so toxic that people don't care. That's probably President Obama's biggest worry - he has to make sure that his base is out and casts votes. I'm sure that the DNC will be busy getting registrations done given how many rules have been brought in in the hopes of excluding voters.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2012)

>insurance companies have no issue funding contraception as it makes business sense for them.

Then they don't need a federal decree.  End of problem, end of discussion.  Much ado about nothing.  If Catholic institutions don't want coverage included, they can either search high and low to find a willing insurer, or self-insure.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> From where is this moderate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican Party emerge? They will have to find a completely new stable of candidates for that, I suspect.
> 
> 2012 is a write off for America ... neither party is fielding a leader ~ just standard bearers: colour ensigns rather than colonels ... the changes will come in the next two decades, as they did to the Democrats in the 1950s and '60s, when they expelled the _Dixiecrats_ and, with them, the working class.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2012)

More on how the Democrat election campaign will play out. This is the inverse of Edward`s post, while the administration ignores the classical heart and soul of the American body politic, he is pandering to various other groups (yet another variation of the class warfare meme):

http://freebeacon.com/column-the-shameless-obama-campaign/



> *Column: The Shameless Obama Campaign*
> At-risk president panders to key groups
> 
> BY: Matthew Continetti - March 9, 2012 5:00 am
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The economic "holy grail" is neither numbers nor narrative, it is well paid (well enough to support a lower middle class family) jobs for school leavers. Those school leavers, men, mostly, in their 20s, 30s and 40s, of all races and creeds, are a HUGE minority and they constitute a stubbornly _static_ slice of the unemployment numbers. Obama has failed them, so far. These men cannot be in Obama's favoured groups: school teachers and first responders, because they are not well enough educated ~ instead they are labourers, factory workers, would-be tradesmen and the like. Capital needs to flow into new enterprises in order to put them to work ~ something Obama's henchmen, Dodd and Franks have helped stymie.
> 
> All the talk about a "knowledge economy" and "green jobs" and so on is just fluff, all huff and puff, but there is nothing there for the male school leaver who wants to (and can) work with his hands, his brawn and his less than "well educated" common sense. In the autumn, the candidate who offers them a sensible plan to out them to work should win the election. I am about 99.99% sure Barak Obama will  not make that offer because he neither knows nor cares about them ... which is too bad because they are the "heart and soul" of his country.




This is the problem:






Reproduced under the Fair Dealin provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_

The _standard_ solution is: retrain our workers to repair robots ~ but we all know that doesn't work very well.

See, instead, James Dyson on manufacturing and why we may be dead in the water already.


----------



## mariomike (11 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> These men cannot be in Obama's favoured groups: school teachers and first responders, because they are not well enough educated ~ instead they are labourers, factory workers, would-be tradesmen and the like.



For what it is worth to the discussion,
"ARLINGTON, Va., (Feb. 7, 2012) -- President Barack Obama continued his commitment to improving employment among veterans by introducing an initiative Feb. 3, 2012, to hire them as the country's first responders.":
http://www.army.mil/article/73192/Obama_announces_program_to_hire_vets_as_first_responders/


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2012)

Bill Maher: Obama's Million Dollar Man 

Watch. If a conservative acted like Maher and Letterman .............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ISKQD7ytSk

Then there is the new Obama “documentary” (and the interview is from CNN not FOX!!!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzBpk7mDQ20&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2012)

From ERC



> Two points:
> 
> 1. It is all about capital, unleashing capital. That's Obama's weakest suit; he doesn't understand capital and, like most people, he doesn't like what he cannot understand. He has done as much as he can to impede capital, to chain it down, he needs to enact policies - policies that will drive the Democratic base and Nancy Pelozi et al wild - to make it attractive to borrow American money from American banks to spend on American projects: energy, infrastructure - especially e.g. highway and sewer repairs, transportation, durable goods, etc; and



I agree it is about unleashing capital but I think there is something fundamental missing.  I can't remember who on these boards first brought it to our attention that Credit literally means He Believes as in He Trusts.

People will only put their treasure in the hands of others if they believe that they will not lose more than they can afford to bet.  In order to make that call then the treasure-owner wants to be able to see a clear path to the future so as to judge the risks.

Obama, and too many other western and eastern politicians fail to grasp that central point.  What repels treasure-holders from investing is random or unforeseen change.  Change can be accomodated and is often welcomed if it is planned for and occurs as promised.  I'm still not sure where I stand with respect to Allison Redford but her 3 year rolling budget strategy makes eminent sense to me.

By contrast Obama not only is cagey about what he actually wants to do and intends to do but he reverses so often that even his friends don't trust him to do what they thought he was going to do.  Combine Obama's vagaries with those of the US Election, the IMF and the European Commission, not to mention a Red Dynasty going through a transition and is it any wonder that people that have cash are standing pat?

Until investors see a more settled future I wouldn't be expecting anyone to be putting any big "game-changing" bets on the table.  Having said that that doesn't mean that people won't be placing affordable side bets on long shots that could ultimately, at some distant point in the future, prove to have been "game changers".  By the way if anybody knows of any such I have a dime I can afford to squander.

It is all about trust.  And Obama (and he is not alone) doesn't inspire trust.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Bill Maher: Obama's Million Dollar Man
> 
> Watch. If a conservative acted like Maher and Letterman .............
> 
> ...



Well those links are pretty enlightening for any rational thinking person. I challenge the Left thinking people to blow holes in the legitimacy of the obvious bias for President Obama being highlighted in these videos.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Bill Maher: Obama's Million Dollar Man
> 
> Watch. If a conservative acted like Maher and Letterman .............
> 
> ...




You know, *documentary* film making ceased being objective somewhere back in the 20th century. Maher and filmaker Davis Guggenheim are following in the great tradition of Leni Riefenstahl ~ except that she was an exceptionally artistic, able and creative film maker and they are no-talent schmucks.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Well those links are pretty enlightening for any rational thinking person. I challenge the Left thinking people to blow holes in the legitimacy of the obvious bias for President Obama being highlighted in these videos.



They don't have to blow holes in it. Maher doesn't pretend that he's not biased and left-thinking. He's actually more left than the Democratic party currently is and has no problem saying so.

His vulgar remarks and the like are part of his act (plus he *is* arrogant because he *is* smarter than the average Joe, by a lot), he is a comedian first and foremost and it just so happens that most of his comedy is based on politics and religion, that's his forte. The GOP is a soup sandwich right now, and they're easy to make fun. He'll call anybody who's a dumb c**t a dumb c**t, and Sarah Palin just happens to have given plenty of examples that she is.

That said, I watch Maher's show every week, and he has much more civil and unbiased debates than almost any place I've seen. Why do you think he (usually) brings an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to his panel? I've seen him point out, to the other Democrats on his panel, when the Republican is stating a fact and they are arguing with that fact (for example, when they were blaming the Republicans for going into Iraq, Maher pointed out that there was a ton of Democrats that voted to go to Iraq as well). He f**king hates Rush Limbaugh, and look who was the one telling the left to accept his apology and get over it.

His thoughts on "getting offended" are basically "that's democracy, and I'd rather be offended than not be able to flap my own lips." Which can be seen here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=365945040092396&set=vb.62507427296&type=2&theater



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Bill Maher: Obama's Million Dollar Man
> 
> Watch. If a conservative acted like Maher and Letterman .............



I guess you don't watch Bill O'Reilly


----------



## cupper (11 Mar 2012)

At the risk of blowing this up again, I've found references to the Supreme Court decision which covers how the States can have mandated coverages which violate religious beliefs.

*New front in birth control rule battle: the courts*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-front-in-birth-control-rule-battle-the-courts/2012/03/06/gIQAokQqxR_story.html

Specifically:



> To win that argument, they will need to clear a major legal hurdle: A landmark 1990 decision in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court found that if a law is “neutral and generally applicable” — meaning that it is not specifically targeted against any religious group — individuals must comply with it even when doing so imposes a burden on their free exercise of religion.
> 
> Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia — a conservative justice known for his strong identification with the Catholic Church — found that to allow otherwise “would be courting anarchy” by making “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Mar 2012)

*Men's* Reproductive health up next??


http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html



> By Jackie Borchardt, Columbus Bureau
> Updated 11:53 PM Saturday, March 10, 2012
> COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
> 
> ...



Read the rest at the link above. From the Dayton Daily News


----------



## GAP (11 Mar 2012)

Whatever happened to bragging talking to your doctor (and everyone else) after a 4 hour erection?  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Mar 2012)

A useful perspective on campaign and, more broadly, _"culture wars"_ rhetoric, reproduced in this article under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/populists-who-speak-the-relative-truth/article2364593/


> Populists who speak the (relative) truth
> 
> IAN BURUMA
> 
> ...




We have become desensitized to shaded "truth" and bald faced lies when they are proffered by politicians and, more often, by our "favourite" media pundits ~ on the left and the right, neither side makes any pretense of being honest and unbiased, they do not pretend to be informing, they are haranguing, aiming to stimulate their own followers and to outrage the opposition. That Senator Santorum is either stupid or a liar - no other explanation fits, does it? - is not surprising; it is part of the "tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," that passes for political discourse in America and, increasingly, in Canada, too. I, for one, am sick of it; maybe we deserve a choice between Obama and Santorum - Tweedledum and Tweedledumber, and their Canadian counterparts, for becoming so careless with out critical faculties.


----------



## ballz (12 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> *Men's* Reproductive health up next??
> 
> 
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html
> ...



That's absolutely beautiful considering the panel of 70-80 yr old male virgins that are wanting to dictate what a woman does with her vagina. Bravo Senator Turner.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2012)

The race should be a runaway, but isn't. Perhaps _the_ underlying issue which are making this seem so strange is outlined here:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/03/11/the-real-entitlement-mentality/?print=1



> *The Real Entitlement Mentality*
> 
> Posted By Roger Kimball On March 11, 2012 @ 7:30 am In Uncategorized | 46 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Mar 2012)

> “a political class that feels entitled to rule over the rest of us.”



Sounds suspiciously similar to "Natural Governing Party"!


----------



## cupper (12 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is the problem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I for one would like to welcome our new Robot Overlords! ;D


----------



## Redeye (12 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's absolutely beautiful considering the panel of 70-80 yr old male virgins that are wanting to dictate what a woman does with her vagina. Bravo Senator Turner.



That's one of a few hilarious bills drafted to highlight the absurdity of laws attacking reproductive choices. Mother Jones ran a pretty good summary of them last week.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Mar 2012)

Last I looked there is no shortage of contraceptives and no laws banning their use. Women can still obtain an abortion - they just wont have the tax payer paying for it. Its time people take personal responsibility.


----------



## Redeye (12 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Last I looked there is no shortage of contraceptives and no laws banning their use. Women can still obtain an abortion - they just wont have the tax payer paying for it. Its time people take personal responsibility.



First off, in the case of contraceptives, there's no argument about taxpayers paying for anything - that's not the issue at hand. And these particular bills are responses to laws introduced in Virginia (and I think other states, but not sure) mandating a highly invasive and medically totally unnecessary procedure (transvaginal ultrasound) for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## ballz (12 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Last I looked there is no shortage of contraceptives and no laws banning their use. Women can still obtain an abortion



Unless Santorum gets his way...



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> they just wont have the tax payer paying for it. Its time people take personal responsibility.



How do tax payer's in the US pay for these exactly? My understanding is that the Federal government doesn't provide the health insurance, so it's not the Federal government paying for abortions/contraception. Employers and employees pay health insurance rates, which is part of the employees compensation package... which is none of the tax payer's business.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Mar 2012)

So.....once I get past all the rhetoric....

(and to perhaps deflect the talk back onto US elections in general)

Am I the only one who finds the nomination process a bit foreign?  Going on what little I know of US history, _as I understand things_, each state in the US is _nominally_ a sovereign state, each with its own constitution, armed force, laws, etc.  As such, and as a group of _united_ states, each decides their own method to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, no?

(When I say nominally sovereign, I understand that each state is forbidden from voluntarily seceding from the union, witness 1861 - 1865)


So, does this explain why, for example, certain states are 'winner take all' in the process, and others have other results applied?


----------



## Redeye (12 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So.....once I get past all the rhetoric....
> 
> (and to perhaps deflect the talk back onto US elections in general)
> 
> ...



In basic terms, yes. But it's the parties, not the states, that make the rules as I understand it. Each state's party organization decides the format for how their primary process works, which determines how their delegations will vote overall in the convention which selects the nominee.


----------



## cupper (12 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> In basic terms, yes. But it's the parties, not the states, that make the rules as I understand it. Each state's party organization decides the format for how their primary process works, which determines how their delegations will vote overall in the convention which selects the nominee.



That's pretty much correct based on my understanding. And to throw an additional kink into the works, the RNC stated that with the rush to move primary and caucus dates further ahead, any state that moved it's vote up earlier than March 15th(?) could not have a winner take all primary / caucus. As well, certain states which moved past super Tuesday would not have their delegates recognized.

Then you have Missouri which moved ahead, but when the RNC said the delegates would not be recognized tried to move it back to March 17th. However the change in dates violated state law, so they held a "beauty contest" primary, and will hold a caucus on March 17th to determine delegates.

ADD TO ALL THIS,

There have been several changes to the rules post vote which have created problems for the state organizations which change them. Maine nullified results from several counties before the count was final. One county had it's vote carried over to the next weekend, and with the results close enough between Romeny and Paul to have the winner overturned by a majority win by Paul that weekend, they decided to nullify the votes in the missing counties. The rules for distribution of delegates in Michigan changed when it was realized that Romney had the most votes, but Santorum took the most congressional districts which is how the delegates are split in Michigan.

It's almost like they don't want this to end.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2012)

This is one of the reasons there is an electoral college, to represent each sovereign State in These United States in electing the chief executive officer. The other reason is to ensure that the more populous states don't overwhelm the smaller, less populous states when choosing a chief executive. Political parties can chose whatever means they like to select their candidate (like our constitution, there is actually no mention of political parities or affiliations at all), so there will be variations in how things are done from State to State.

The drawn out selection process is a holdover of the past when travel across the United States was long and arduous, mass communication was primitive and there were very great differences between the various States. What was attractive to voters in New York might rub voters in Illinois the wrong way, so policies and positions needed to be argued in front of an audience of voters. Reading "A Team of Rivals" puts this into perspective, Lincoln had to orate before crowds numbering in thousands to build the infant Republican Party and secure the nomination. Today the process may still have utility:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-has-more-problems-than-gas-prices/2012/03/12/gIQAjz0U7R_blog.html



> *Obama has more problems than gas prices*
> By Jennifer Rubin
> 
> The new Post-ABC poll shows that “46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.”
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2012)

Well, Gingrich's _Souther Sweep_ appears to be in tatters ~ but Romney better hope he (Gingrich) hates him (Romney) enough to stay in the race because if the strong "conservative," religious and Tea Party vote doesn't split (as it's doing, right now, in Alabama and Mississippi, then Romney's road to the nomination is harder, not easier. Romney needs Gingrich to stay in for Louisiana (24 Mar) and Texas (29 May).


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2012)

Yeah, Santoram just got a good 2nd breath....likely won't win, but he will be a contender.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

Whoever wins (and unless something really unexpected happens, it probably will be Romney), we should also pay attention to the other side of the coin. Like the man says, a week is a long time in politics, but too many "weeks" like this may sink the administration regardless of the Republican nominee. Unless US political culture is very different from ours, voters probably are more inclined to "vote out" the old rascal rather than "vote in" the new guy. Even 2008 cold well be seen as a referendum of sorts against the Bush Administration. Since most Americans are no longer buying the false economic and employment figures the Administration and Legacy media provide, the "shock" of the media pundits wil only be amplified as the "narrative" collapses:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/pundits-gasp-economy-dents-obamas-poll-numbers/425931



> *Pundits gasp as economy dents Obama's poll numbers*
> 
> byMichael Barone
> posted16 hours ago at5:12pmwith24 Comments
> ...


----------



## Haletown (14 Mar 2012)

POTUS Obama's picks for March Madness . . .


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Mar 2012)

The Dinner was the night after Obama took PM Cameron to Ohio for a basketball game. Good use of tax dollars - both events.

The US taxpayer could probably save a Trillion dollars a year by restricting Obama's travel by 50 %.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/03/15/obama-state-dinner-recalls-clinton-coffee-klatches/

Obama State Dinner Recalls Clinton Coffee Klatches

by Keith Koffler on March 15, 2012, 10:04 am

One out of nine guests expected at last night’s State Dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron are helping finance President Obama’s reelection campaign, according to an analysis by ABC News. The event is reminiscent of the infamous Clinton White House “Coffee Klatches” at which previous or prospective Democratic donors were invited to meetings with Bill Clinton.

While technically Obama’s use of the White House to fete his donors may be legal, it certainly gives the appearance that he is using the White House grounds and a swank taxpayer-funded event to raise money.

Not only does this look like a reward for fundraising, but it seems like an enticement to continue doing so. This is because the fundraisers, who totaled 41 of the 364 expected attendees, are campaign “bundlers,” which means they generally not only give the legal maximum themselves but solicit others to contribute to Obama. So their work for the president may continue.

ABC found that the group is responsible for donating and collecting $10.7 million for the Obama campaign. The bundlers include some familiar and prominent names, according to ABC:

    They include Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, media mogul Fred Eychaner, Pfizer executive Sally Susman, Stoneyfield Farms president and CEO Gary Hirschberg,  and Microsoft executives Suzi Levine and John Frank.  Several have each raised more than half a million dollars for 2012, according to estimates provided by Obama’s campaign and Democrats.

The Clinton operation brought in about $27 million for the Democratic National Committee from those invited to attend dozens of coffees with Clinton in 1995 and 1996. Many donors contributed during the month before or after the coffees.


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2012)

Based on how much earlier the election cycle is getting each time, I think that we need to switch gears, and start throwing out discussion points for November 2016, as any further discussion for 2012 no longer matters. :nod:


----------



## Haletown (16 Mar 2012)

Well this could make an effective TV ad for the campaign.


The Obama White House team has been claiming the latest budget will mean a huge reduction in the US national debt.

The independent CBO begs to differ.

"President Barack Obama’s budget proposal would add $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The nonpartisan agency, in an analysis today of the administration’s February budget request, said it would produce a deficit of almost $1 trillion in 2013.

The blockbuster report demolishes White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.  The CBO arrived at the huge figure even after taking into account reduced war costs.'




Oopsie !   ;D



http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-budget-deficit/2012/03/16/id/432800


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Based on how much earlier the election cycle is getting each time, I think that we need to switch gears, and start throwing out discussion points for November 2016, as any further discussion for 2012 no longer matters. :nod:



Easy there; the Bush girls won't be ready until at least 2020....


----------



## cupper (16 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Easy there; the Bush girls won't be ready until at least 2020....



The Hottie Ticket! ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Mar 2012)

From what I've seen the Republicans would be better off running Snooki for President and Paris Hilton as her VP.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Mar 2012)

Against President Obama any of the Republicans could do better.The President is without question our first Marxist President. Who in their right mind blocks oil exploration to advance green technologies that arent yet ready for primetime.The truck manufacturers are trotting out rigs that will run on natural gas and yet the infrastructure to support 100,000 big rigs doesnt exist. There is no shortage of crude oil in the US so why not get it to market which would free us from Arab oil.


----------



## cupper (17 Mar 2012)

First off, oil production has increased each year since the Obama Administration came in, where as oil production continually decreased during the Bush years.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

The US is currently a net exporter of petroleum distillates including gasoline.

http://www.politicususa.com/gop-gasoline-export/

Regardless of all of the above, drilling your way out of this problem is a pipe dream, as the production is already running at capacity.

As for the increase in gas prices, where was all the bitching at the Bush administration when we hit $4.05 / gallon in June of 2008. In September 2008, when the markets crashed, gas was at $3.70 / gallon. When Obama took office it had dropped to $1.79. What we are seeing now is the expected rebound of gas prices as demand comes back, (not withstanding the additional influences of speculation, mid-east unrest, etc) and resume the steady climb that was occurring during the Bush years.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/

(set the chart to monthly to get a detailed view of prices)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/gassy-rhetoric-on-gasoline-prices/2012/02/26/gIQAqPAXdR_blog.html

Long and short, the President, be it Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Bush, Clinton or anyone else has no ability to control the price of oil and gas. It is a global market, with prices set by the markets in New York, Copenhagen and elsewhere. Speculators, world wide demand, and unrest in the Middle East  all play larger parts in pricing than does domestic policy in the US.


----------



## cupper (17 Mar 2012)

Also, a little perspective on historical gas price data. Things aren't as bad as they have been in the past.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Gasoline Prices in Perspective

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren (This article appeared in Investor's Business Daily, May 17, 2006)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gasoline-prices-perspective

America appears to be in a state of wild-eyed panic about the rising price of gasoline. Talk radio hosts and T.V. populists apparently think that mass riots are imminent and that whole cities will burn unless politicians do something to save America from the long, dark economic night that is descending upon us.

In truth, gasoline prices today are taking less of a bite from our pocketbooks than has been the norm since World War II.

For instance, let's look at 1955, a year most of us associate with big cars, big engines, and cheap fuel – automotive glory days, as it were. Gasoline sold for 29 cents per gallon. But one dollar in 1955 was worth more than one dollar today. If we were using today's dollars, gasoline would have cost $1.76 per gallon in 1955.

Gasoline now costs around $3.00, so we are worse off than in 1955, right? No. Because we were poorer in 1955 than we are today, $1.76 then had a bigger impact on the pocketbook (that is, it represented a larger fraction of income) than $1.76 today. If we adjust gasoline prices not only for inflation but also changes in disposable per capita income (defined as income minus taxes), gasoline today would have to cost $5.17 per gallon to have the same impact as 29 cents in 1955.

Let's pick another year we associate with low gasoline prices – 1972, the year before the Arab oil embargo. Gasoline was selling at 36 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, however, the price was actually $1.36 in today's currency. Adjust again for changes in disposable per capita income and the price would have to be $2.66 per gallon to have equivalent impact today.

Were we better off then when we rolled into the filling station in 1972 than we are today? No, because our cars get 60 to 70 percent better mileage today than in 1972 (22.4 miles per gallon versus 13.5 miles per gallon). That more than offsets the 10.5 percent increase in gas prices adjusted for change in inflation and income from then to now.

Now let's look at 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office. Gasoline sold for $1.38 that year, the equivalent of $2.74 in today's currency. Adjusting for the change in disposable per capita income, prices would have to be $4.30 today to have an equivalent impact.

There are probably three reasons that gasoline prices appear so high to us today. First, many don't fully appreciate the long run effect that inflation has on prices. Second, many don't appreciate how much our incomes have increased relative to prices. Finally, we still remember 1998 very well, the year in which we encountered the lowest gasoline prices since 1949. Gasoline in 1998 sold for $1.03 per gallon, the equivalent of $1.21 in today's currency. Adjusting for growth in per capita income yields a price of $1.35 per gallon in today's terms. Today's price is more than double that and people resent the increase over the last several years, in part, because they think that 1998 prices were normal. But they were not.

Now let's put the recent price increase in terms of real outlays. The average household is spending $136 more on gasoline every month than it was in 1998 and $114 per month more than it were spending in 2002. But, believe it or not, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per household has increased even faster than have pump prices; by $800 a month since 1998 and $279 a month since 2002.

Accordingly, Americans are still, on average, economically ahead of the game.

No one likes high gasoline prices. But they are not as bad as most people think. Keep that in mind the next time some politician or media populist starts handing out the pitchforks.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2012)

The increase in oil production is on private, not Fereral land (leases are still blocked there), and are almost entirely due to advances in exploration technology (to identify where the oil is) and drilling technologies like Fracking and horizontal drilling. 

As for the historical price analogy, while it is true (and bottled water is still cheaper, another popular trope), this is not very comforting to people pulling up to the pump and paying more than $4.00/gal. Indeed, since incomes are either stagnant or declining while inflation erodes the food and fuel budget; people see their disposable incomes decline. Expect to see more "Thanks Barrack" stickers on gas pumps as the year unfolds.

Election fun: Rutherford B Hayes responds to Obama's whopper: http://www.quickmeme.com/hip-rutherford-b-hayes/popular/?upcoming


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2012)

More election fun: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/gop-mocks-obama-movie.php


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Mar 2012)

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered 
About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA. 
Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope 
Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS. 
As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands 
A stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered



I tried to get a better morgage rate based on this principle but no one would go for it,.........."I'm worth 3 million dollars, it's just waiting to be discovered".

Gee,....can't figure out why that didn't work..........


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2012)

Here are two complementary views about the _religious right_ that I found interesting; they are both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/religion-plays-starring-role-in-gop-race/article2372299/


> Religion plays starring role in GOP race
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> 
> ...



*And*​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-gop-is-obsessed-with-womens-bodies/article2372095/


> The GOP is obsessed with women’s bodies
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> ...




It is no secret that I believe that religion is a private matter between you - individually and collectively - and your gods; it is sufficient that you ring your bells and chant in public; the rest, especially your beliefs are a private matter. Your and my _right_ to freedom of conscience is absolute: you and I may believe as we wish; but our right to believe does not, in any way, imply a concomitant right to *impose* our beliefs on others; nor, in my opinion, is there even a _right_ to proselytize - we _tolerate_ "missionaries" of all sorts, at home and abroad but they have no _right_, beyond the (bounded) rights of freedom of speech, to try to impose their beliefs on me, you or others.

The American religious right does bear some peculiar similarities to the fundamentalist _ayatollas_ and Wahhabi _sheiks_ and _imans_ that most fundamentalist Christians despise ~ they all try to impose their own _cultural_ 'values' on others, often, especially, upon women. I think this has a lot more to do with misogynist culture than with religion.

All that to say that Rick Santorum represents a minority in American life and his values are out of step with his country.


----------



## GAP (18 Mar 2012)

From MARGARET WENTE's article...



> Many of the most credible potential candidates for president are sitting out the race.



pretty much sums it up....


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

You are right, of course.  If someone recites the rosary, completes the Hajj or whatever it is an entirely private matter. 
Concerning moral codes of behavior, however,  they have the same right and duty as non religious and atheists to chime in on what they believe to be right.  For example, they can suggest that using contraceptives acts as a barrier between couples.  But, in the end, since no persons are harmed, that's the limit.  On the issue of abortion, however, given the belief that the aborted fetus is a human being with the same inherent right to life as everyone else, they are not concerned one iota with vaginas.  It's not seen as an issue of women's rights, but human rights.
So, the esteemed media may dismiss them as kooks (and they may be, for all I know), but in calling them that avoids the argument and resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
So, personal beliefs about divinity, spiritual rites, etc. are just that, personal.  But when they oppose things such as abortion, they aren't trying to convert or force their beliefs on anyone: they are trying to end what they see as a gross violation of human rights.


----------



## GAP (18 Mar 2012)

He makes some valid points, but this self destruct path the GOP is going down can't be helping......

 Don’t underestimate ‘President Romney’
Lawrence Solomon  Mar 16, 2012
Article Link

Mitt Romney is a loser, most pundits agree. He can’t inspire his Republican base enough to seal the deal with them. He’s already turned off Independent voters through barrages of negative ads against his Republican rivals. A Romney presidency is so likely a lost cause that prominent Conservative pundit George Will argues that Republicans should instead focus on winning Congress.

Will et al., the evidence will show, are spectacularly wrong. Romney is running a masterful win-the-moderates campaign that will allow him to best Obama in the general election, even if all the stars align poorly for Republicans in November. If the stars align well, Romney could win a blowout victory, the biggest since Reagan took 49 states against Walter Mondale in 1984.

Had Romney gone after the Republican nomination as did Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and early also-rans such as Rick Perry — by throwing red meat to the Republican base — he would have easily sewn up the contest by now. Instead, knowing red meat turns off the large plurality of Americans who are moderates — his personal base — Romney decided to preserve his political capital for the general election. To protect his image as a moderate on social issues, Romney forwent a quick knockout victory against his Republican rivals in favour of slowly accumulating delegates through wins and near wins in one voting round after another. He has chosen to win the nomination by a TKO rather than a KO.

This strategy of winning on points — derided for being uninspiring arithmetic — has now given Romney more delegates than all the other Republicans combined, over one million more votes than his next-closest rival, wins in more than twice as many states and territories as his next-closest rival and an almost sure lock on the Republican nomination.

But hasn’t Romney been gravely damaged through his gruelling slugfest against fellow Republicans, as most pundits believe? To the contrary, despite all the attacks levied at Romney by his Republican rivals, polls of likely voters now show him running neck and neck against Obama. And that’s before the general election campaign has begun, and before it will be Obama’s turn to face the Romney attack machine.

People forget how weak a candidate Obama was in the 2008 presidential election campaign, despite his immense personal appeal. Until the 2008 financial meltdown in September created chaos among Republicans, Obama was actually losing in the polls against Republican candidate John McCain. In the end, Obama won with just 53% of the vote against a disorganized and disoriented Republican campaign.

Romney in 2012 will have phenomenal advantages that McCain’s campaign of 2008 lacked. The Obama of 2008 famously argued for hope and change, for a country that put its racial bigotry behind it, for a country comprised not of red states and blue states but for a United States of America. Most Americans, polls show, believe that America under Obama’s administration has become more partisan and more racially divided. Gone is Obama’s signature appeal.
Advertisement
Advertisement

McCain couldn’t confront Obama on his record because he didn’t have one in 2008, and McCain also didn’t have the stomach for negative attack ads, not against what he rightly saw as a historic presidential run by an African-American. Romney, as the Republican race established, will have no compunction about bombarding Obama with attack ads, and given the record that Obama must now defend, Romney will have a target-rich environment. Obama’s signature piece of legislation – Obamacare – is so unpopular with the U.S. public that most want it repealed. Only 38% approve of the job Obama has done on the economy and only 26% strongly approve of his performance overall. More than 20% of Democrats have left the party since Obama’s election.

Whereas in the past most Americans absolved Obama of the poor economy, today about half hold him responsible. Then there’s potentially the biggest issue of all — the $15-trillion-and-rising debt , with more of the government debt being accumulated under Obama than under all the previous U.S. presidents combined. The debt, which many Americans fear could permanently send the country into decline by turning the U.S. into another Greece, creates a visceral fear in many Americans.

For these reasons and others, a U.S. News and World report poll earlier this year found that 33% of Americans fear Obama’s re-election, their single greatest fear, with higher taxes close behind at 31%. Only 16% expressed fear that a Republican would be elected president.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You are right, of course.  If someone recites the rosary, completes the Hajj or whatever it is an entirely private matter.
> Concerning moral codes of behavior, however,  they have the same right and duty as non religious and atheists to chime in on what they believe to be right.  For example, they can suggest that using contraceptives acts as a barrier between couples.  But, in the end, since no persons are harmed, that's the limit.  On the issue of abortion, however, given the belief that the aborted fetus is a human being with the same inherent right to life as everyone else, they are not concerned one iota with vaginas.  It's not seen as an issue of women's rights, but human rights.
> So, the esteemed media may dismiss them as kooks (and they may be, for all I know), but in calling them that avoids the argument and resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
> So, personal beliefs about divinity, spiritual rites, etc. are just that, personal.  But when they oppose things such as abortion, they aren't trying to convert or force their beliefs on anyone: they are trying to end what they see as a gross violation of human rights.




What we have, TV, is a clash of _perceptions_: some (including many Christians) believe that a fetus is a human from the moment if conception and that its _*right* to life_ is absolute and those people exercise their _freedom of expression_ to propagate that view in the "public (political) square." Others believe that a fetus is more akin to a tumour until it reaches some (defined?) stage or "viability" and that a person's _right to *privacy*_ allows her to remove that neoplasm if she wishes. There is no "clash of rights" - all sides are exercising established rights (to freedom of expression and to privacy), the issue is: is a fetus a person or a neoplasm ~ if the former then it, too, has rights, if the latter then there is no issue.

My  :2c:


----------



## cupper (18 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You are right, of course.  If someone recites the rosary, completes the Hajj or whatever it is an entirely private matter.
> Concerning moral codes of behavior, however,  they have the same right and duty as non religious and atheists to chime in on what they believe to be right.  For example, they can suggest that using contraceptives acts as a barrier between couples.  But, in the end, since no persons are harmed, that's the limit.  On the issue of abortion, however, given the belief that the aborted fetus is a human being with the same inherent right to life as everyone else, they are not concerned one iota with vaginas.  It's not seen as an issue of women's rights, but human rights.
> So, the esteemed media may dismiss them as kooks (and they may be, for all I know), but in calling them that avoids the argument and resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
> So, personal beliefs about divinity, spiritual rites, etc. are just that, personal.  But when they oppose things such as abortion, they aren't trying to convert or force their beliefs on anyone: they are trying to end what they see as a gross violation of human rights.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What we have, TV, is a clash of _perceptions_: some (including many Christians) believe that a fetus is a human from the moment if conception and that its _*right* to life_ is absolute and those people exercise their _freedom of expression_ to propagate that view in the "public (political) square." Others believe that a fetus is more akin to a tumour until it reaches some (defined?) stage or "viability" and that a person's _right to *privacy*_ allows her to remove that neoplasm if she wishes. There is no "clash of rights" - all sides are exercising established rights (to freedom of expression and to privacy), the issue is: is a fetus a person or a neoplasm ~ if the former then it, too, has rights, if the latter then there is no issue.
> 
> My  :2c:



But how do you square the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus?

In cases where the life of the mother is threatened if the child is carried to term, for example. Or cases of rape or incest (as if there really is a difference) where the mother was impregnated against her will?

Many of the so-called personhood laws would make the fetus a ward of the state, and essentially strip the rights of the mother away. She would be forced by law to carry a child to full term, regardless of the circumstances, including a distinct threat to her own life.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But how do you square the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus?
> 
> In cases where the life of the mother is threatened if the child is carried to term, for example. Or cases of rape or incest (as if there really is a difference) where the mother was impregnated against her will?
> 
> Many of the so-called personhood laws would make the fetus a ward of the state, and essentially strip the rights of the mother away. She would be forced by law to carry a child to full term, regardless of the circumstances, including a distinct threat to her own life.


Any answer to the above questions muddies the point of this thread: the 2012 US Presidential Election.  It certainly is a divisive issue, and I don't want the toilet flushing on this thread (because we all know it would devolve into this:
 :argument:


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> the issue is: is a fetus a person or a neoplasm ~ if the former then it, too, has rights, if the latter then there is no issue.
> 
> My  :2c:


That is exactly the issue.  And the conclusions are also bang on.  For it the foetus is merely a blob of cells, then removing it is exactly like removing a cyst, and the decision is entirely up to the mother (if of legal age) or the parents (just as with any other medical treatment for minors where the age of the minor requires an adult to sign off on any procedures).  If the foetus is a person, then you're right, there is no decision because it has the same rights as e.g. an infant.

But this thread won't decide the issue or even bring up anything other than a whole lot of fluff that gets away from the core of the issue in the USA: Who is best suited to be president for the next four years?


----------



## cupper (18 Mar 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Any answer to the above questions muddies the point of this thread: the 2012 US Presidential Election.  It certainly is a divisive issue, and I don't want the toilet flushing on this thread (because we all know it would devolve into this:
> :argument:



True, it does muddy the point. But it is a valid issue to discuss as part of the election, as there are many states which are considering personhood amendments in November.

The sad part is that they may not believe in the idea behind it, but see it as a way of energizing the bases and ensuring that they get out and vote.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

> The GOP is obsessed with women’s bodies
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> 
> ...


I admit that once I read the above statement in the opener to the opinion piece, I stopped reading.  Ms. Wente can of course say whatever she wishes on whatever topic she chooses.  Having said that, this opening statement in which her contempt for the US Republican Party is not veiled in the slightest, simply tells me that there is no objective analysis.  Yes, subjectivity exists in practically everthing we write; however, in this case, her bigotry shines through.  I mean, I get it, she opposes their position on probably everthing, but since her post secondary studies were in English Lit (MA in English from the U of T) and not in Psychology, I'm fairly confident that her assessment of Republicans as "completely crazy" isn't based on an informed medical opinion.  She is making a judgement on _them_ and not on their position on anything, for that matter.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> True, it does muddy the point. But it is a valid issue to discuss as part of the election, as there are many states which are considering personhood amendments in November.
> 
> The sad part is that they may not believe in the idea behind it, but see it as a way of energizing the bases and ensuring that they get out and vote.


Good point, and I'm entirely with you 100% on those people who see it as a means to an end, as opposed to an end in of itself.  (That's for *both* sides of the issue.  Hell, whom am I kidding?  That's practically 100% true for ANY issue...)


----------



## cupper (18 Mar 2012)

:cheers:


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> :cheers:


After all I drank last night?  No thank you 

(But thanks for the offer)  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Mar 2012)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/19/obama-burns-jet-fuel-to-downplay-gasoline-prices/

Obama burns jet fuel to downplay gasoline prices

Published: 8:08 AM 03/19/2012 


President Barack Obama is about to launch a 5,000-mile, four-state, two-day trip on Air Force One to contain the political damage caused by high gas prices.

Obama is slated to fly out this Wednesday to camera-ready podiums in Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Colorado, from where he’ll tout his administration’s efforts to reduce the nation’s use of gasoline.

His 5,000-mile trip will consume roughly 25,000 gallons of jet fuel, according to Boeing.

That adds up to a fuel bill of $80,000, assuming the Air Force buys jet fuel at the cheapest cost, now estimated at $3.20 a gallon by the U.S. Energy Administration. The retail price for jet-fuel at local airports is just over $6 a gallon, including taxes.

Still, the cheapest jet-fuel costs about 43 cents less per gallon than the $3.63 cost of auto gasoline in Columbus, in swing-state Ohio, where the president will make his final speech on the trip.

The cost of gasoline is boosted by state taxes, which amount to roughly 40 cents per gallon, according to GasBuddy.com, which tracks the cost of gasoline in each state. 

The president’s support aircraft, including the C-17 cargo jets that carry his armored limousines and additional vehicles to cities before his arrival, will each burn a comparable amount of additional jet-fuel during the campaign swing. 

There are several support aircraft, not one.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2012)

Maybe the President needs to take a bicycle tour of the USA. Mind you, he'd have to have a bodyguard of Secret Service dudes on bikes....all with Oakleys on....LOL.

Can someone tell me why Michelle Obama is important?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe the President needs to take a bicycle tour of the USA. Mind you, he'd have to have a bodyguard of Secret Service dudes on bikes....all with Oakleys on....LOL.
> 
> Can someone tell me why Michelle Obama is important?




She is a helluva campaigner: a highly skilled performer/communicator. Consider this, from CTV News, which features a clip of Ms. Obama on a majort US talk show - the _narrative_, Ms. Obama shops, incognito, at _Target_, is a direct attack on the filthy rich, disconnected Romneys. She's saying: "we are nice, ordinary, funny, folks - we could be your neighbours, we understand your problems, vote for us." She did a great job and, I suspect, probably doesn't have to write is off as campaign expenses.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me why Michelle Obama is important?



For the same reason Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush were important.



(Note I omit Hillary Clinton from the list, as her seeking to become POTUS, changes the dynamic of her importance relative to her husband)


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Mar 2012)

Another spend, spend, spend the taxpayers money report on events.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/white-house-admits-to-asking-news-agencies-to-pull-malia-obama-vacation-story/

*White House Admits to Asking News Agencies to Pull Malia Obama Vacation Story*

  
The White House has admitted to telling news agencies to pull stories on Malia Obama visiting Mexico for spring break, Politico reports.

Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady, emailed Dylan Byers:

    _From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls._

The Blaze first noticed the disappearing stories Monday afternoon, when accounts of Malia and 12 friends visiting Oaxaca *with 25 Secret Service agents *mysteriously began turning into broken links.

However, in admitting to “reminding outlets” about not reporting on the Obama children when there is “no vital news interest,” the White House has also tacitly admitted that Malia is (or now maybe was) in Mexico for spring break. Additional evidence has surfaced confirming that. One site has published a photo of the Obamas going to church on Sunday. It notes that Malia is absent, and says that’s due to the Mexico trip:

White House Admits to Asking Malia Story to be Pulled

That site has also posted alleged photos of the vacation, but we have decided not to repost those.

As The Blaze noted on Monday, a vacation for Malia in Mexico raises a slew of questions considering the State Department has warned American citizens against travel there.

In fact, the language contained in the State Department’s travel warning is quite ominous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, Gingrich's _Souther Sweep_ appears to be in tatters ~ but Romney better hope he (Gingrich) hates him (Romney) enough to stay in the race because if the strong "conservative," religious and Tea Party vote doesn't split (as it's doing, right now, in Alabama and Mississippi, then Romney's road to the nomination is harder, not easier. Romney needs Gingrich to stay in for Louisiana (24 Mar) and Texas (29 May).




Almost time to eat my words ... after Romney's convincing (12%) victory in Illinois this evening he no longer _must have_ Gingrich to split the vote; Gingrich is still a _nice to have_ but the CNN pundits were opining that if Gingrich drops out it will suit Romney just as well as Santorum because the Gingrich supporters are not, automatically, going to Santorum - may they will split 50/50 or some (many?) may just stay home. In any event the CNN talking heads were projecting that even if Santorum wins Louisiana and Texas and a few others Romney will, most probably, secure the nomination (with 1144+ votes) on 5 Jun 12 when California and New Jersey vote.


----------



## cupper (21 Mar 2012)

Well, it's official.

Romney and Santorum have been given their Secret Service code names.

Romney = Javelin

Santorum = Petrus

*A Javelin or a Petrus in the White House?*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-romney-and-santorums-secret-service-code-names-tell-us/2012/03/20/gIQAV3wLQS_story.html?hpid=z6



> The Secret Service offered “Javelin” for that reason, according to Romney’s campaign. Javelin was the name of a “pony” car built between 1967 and 1974 by American Motors Corp., which was once run by George Romney. A two-door hardtop, it was the sort of car one might expect to appeal to guys who liked to go fast — or who saw themselves as kinda cool in a slicked-back-hair kind of way. It was, in fact, one of Mitt Romney’s first cars.





> Santorum is of an entirely different order. To those who know him, his selection of Petrus is perfect, again tinged with irony. In Latin, petrus means rock and also is associated with Saint Peter, the first pope of the Catholic Church. Jesus said to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” and so Peter did. St. Peter’s Basilica, the centerpiece of the Vatican, is built upon Peter’s bones.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Mar 2012)

I am resigned to Romney as the GOP candidate. I dont see how Santorum can close the delegate gap.


----------



## RangerRay (21 Mar 2012)

> The Secret Service offered “Javelin” for that reason, according to Romney’s campaign. Javelin was the name of a “pony” car built between 1967 and 1974 by American Motors Corp., which was once run by George Romney. A two-door hardtop, it was the sort of car one might expect to appeal to guys who liked to go fast — or who saw themselves as kinda cool in a slicked-back-hair kind of way. It was, in fact, one of Mitt Romney’s first cars.



At least they didn't pick "Pacer" or "Gremlin".  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2012)

An interesting perspective from David Frum, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/david-frum-trayvon-martin-and-the-backlash-against-the-backlash/


> Trayvon Martin, and the backlash against the backlash
> 
> David Frum
> 
> ...




Fear is a strong emotion and, as Québec voters routinely remind Canadians, so is revenge. Florida is an important swing state; will a combination of black mothers' fear of having their sons and daughters shot down in the street and black men's desire to exact revenge on white America be enough to swing the vote towards Obama in November?


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Mar 2012)

There is more than enough black on black gun violence and yet there is outrage because a white guy did it ? Please.


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is more than enough black on black gun violence and yet there is outrage because a white guy did it ? Please.



There's outrage because a wannabe cop shot an innocent kid whose "crime" was going to a corner store to buy some Skittles and an iced tea. He was shot dead by what sounds like a paranoid lunatic, while he frantically called for help. Barring the emergence of some new evidence, that's inexcusable.


----------



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's outrage because a wannabe cop shot an innocent kid whose "crime" was going to a corner store to buy some Skittles and an iced tea. He was shot dead by what sounds like a paranoid lunatic, while he frantically called for help. Barring the emergence of some new evidence, that's inexcusable.



From what I've read, the outrage is more because the man has not been arrested yet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's outrage because a wannabe cop shot an innocent kid whose "crime" was going to a corner store to buy some Skittles and an iced tea. He was shot dead by what sounds like a paranoid lunatic, while he frantically called for help. Barring the emergence of some new evidence, that's inexcusable.



What part of the court system down there, or part of the law firm for either side do you work for that allows you to decide who is innocent and who is guilty. Only an egotistical, pompous, liberal elitist would presume to be able to judge a case, soley on media hype and report from half a globe away.

Give your head a big shake and shut your cake hole if your going to become judge and jury instead of discussing things on an educated level.

We get enough of your type of crap, moral outrage and high and mighty nanny state manifesto from the left leaning MSM and PR seeking politicians.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2012)

And then....



> Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman
> 
> Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
> Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And then....



That must be a lie! Redeye says so. Redeye says that the minority, underprivileged black guy was the victim. Redeye says the white, Jewish guy was the aggressor. Guns in the hands of Hebrew, white guys are weapons of aggression, not protection. Redeye says that, contrary to what the news knows now, that the white guy was the aggressor. Redeye will say that that evidence doesn't count, because it's "that damn media" the same "damn media" that he used above to slur and convict, in his mind, a white Jewish guy from half a world away while he's online in Afghanistan, instead of as a reporter for a paper in Florida where the incident took place.

However, that's what people need to realize. The Left gains support, credibility an status from bullying, selective reporting and outright lying. All things that Redeye uses to validate his fanatical and phantasmal opinions and views.

A tumour dies when it's source for living is cut off. A ludicrous, ignorant, nonsensical, partisan conversation\ discussion dies when you stop responding to the dick that continuously disagrees because Napoleon is dead and that pompous asshole thinks the should have the job.

Oh look, we found his T-Shirt!!!! :nod:


----------



## Kalatzi (25 Mar 2012)

Looking at the above - Let me say we all have our off days

I'm not being sarcastic.  RG Be well. 

I think this link provides a pretty good summary

The key thing that sticks in my mind - a 140Lb kid - kicking a 240 lb adults butt? If that's the case Zimmerman made the wrong career choice. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_4aOX-aVuI


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That must be a lie! Redeye says so. Redeye says that the minority, underprivileged black guy was the victim. Redeye says the white, Jewish guy was the aggressor. Guns in the hands of Hebrew, white guys are weapons of aggression, not protection. Redeye says that, contrary to what the news knows now, that the white guy was the aggressor. Redeye will say that that evidence doesn't count, because it's "that damn media" the same "damn media" that he used above to slur and convict, in his mind, a white Jewish guy from half a world away while he's online in Afghanistan, instead of as a reporter for a paper in Florida where the incident took place.



WTF is this? I never said any of that - I hadn't seen the account of this other witness before I posted that, fair. I also said nothing about the nationality or religious bent of the shooter. From my understanding, the victim made a 911 call trying in which he plead for help, which included what was in all likelihood the fatal shot. If there's more evidence, great, let's hear it. But I'm still at a loss to understand how shooting an unarmed kid, who by the accounts I read was followed by a man who appointed himself neighbourhood watch, is acceptable.

There's outrage about a number of facets of the case - the time it took the deceased parents' to be notified, the overall handling of the case by the Sanford Police, and stupid comments made in the media (like "Latino and black parents shouldn't let their kids wear hoodies" - way to go Geraldo Rivera), when the fact is that a 17 year old kid who was a decent student who'd never been in trouble with the law is dead for no apparently reason. Oh, and of course, stupid comments made by posters on this site (quoted post included). I don't think people wanting an explanation, and accountability in this case is remotely unreasonable.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> However, that's what people need to realize. The Left gains support, credibility an status from bullying, selective reporting and outright lying. All things that Redeye uses to validate his fanatical and phantasmal opinions and views.



 :rofl:

Nearly slanderous nonsense. Fanatical views? Please. I'm pretty much in the centre of the spectrum. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> A tumour dies when it's source for living is cut off. A ludicrous, ignorant, nonsensical, partisan conversation\ discussion dies when you stop responding to the dick that continuously disagrees because Napoleon is dead and that pompous ******* thinks the should have the job.



Wow. I could say this about you, with monotonous regularity. But I don't.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2012)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> The key thing that sticks in my mind - a 140Lb kid - kicking a 240 lb adults butt? If that's the case Zimmerman made the wrong career choice.



Well all I can respond to this is you obviously don't have a clue...............anytime you wish to engage  these guys,....well, have at 'er.


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well all I can respond to this is you obviously don't have a clue...............anytime you wish to engage  these guys,....well, have at 'er.



Unless Trayvon was some kind of MMA fighter, which I don't believe there's any evidence of, I would hazard a guess that most people would agree that 100lbs weight difference gave Zimmerman a marked advantage. Further, he chose to follow the guy and cause the confrontation. It sounds like the victim was simply returning home, minding his own business.

There's also the 9/11 transcript where the dispatcher told Zimmerman there was no need to follow him. This man made a choice to go after him, and the outcome was tragic. I find it interesting that the man who signed the "Stand Your Ground" act into law (former FL Governor Jeb Bush) indicated that he doesn't see that law applying in this case.

This whole thing doesn't pass any smell test, and I'm glad that Gov Scott has gotten a lot of resources involved in investigating it and getting to the bottom of it.


----------



## larry Strong (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Unless Trayvon was some kind of MMA fighter, which I don't believe there's any evidence of, I would hazard a guess that most people would agree that 100lbs weight difference gave Zimmerman a marked advantage. Further, he chose to follow the guy and cause the confrontation. It sounds like the victim was simply returning home, minding his own business.
> 
> There's also the 9/11 transcript where the dispatcher told Zimmerman there was no need to follow him. This man made a choice to go after him, and the outcome was tragic. I find it interesting that the man who signed the "Stand Your Ground" act into law (former FL Governor Jeb Bush) indicated that he doesn't see that law applying in this case.
> 
> This whole thing doesn't pass any smell test, and I'm glad that Gov Scott has gotten a lot of resources involved in investigating it and getting to the bottom of it.



Yup, and the odds of parents giving their kids "Martial Arts" training is slim to none as well.............


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, that's what people need to realize. The Left gains support, credibility an status from bullying, selective reporting and outright lying. All things that Redeye uses to validate his fanatical and phantasmal opinions and views.



Kinda like the Right Wing Conservative Media, and Faux News being a prime example. >


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Yup, and the odds of parents giving their kids "Martial Arts" training is slim to none as well.............



Okay, okay. I submit.

Trayvon Martin might have been some sort of kung fu fighter. So it was totally legitimate for him to be shot dead. Okay. I'm glad we've put that one to bed.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Scott (25 Mar 2012)

Do that hitting yourself thingy again. And again. And again.

No one said it was legitimate. People are putting forth different viewpoints. If you can't handle that then it's time you make excuses about having to update virus definitions and log off for a while. People are getting sick of this constant bullshit from you.

You weren't there. Neither was I. The difference being that I'm happy to consider alternative viewpoints. And I don't lambaste others for theirs.

Scott
Staff


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Mar 2012)

So, redeye - to RG's point, you simply discount this?



> "When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
> 
> Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
> 
> Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.



http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012


I assume because it is a Fox affiliate? I agree with you in that, on it's face - this was a senseless shooting. On the other hand, it appears that you dismiss any part of the story that doesn't fit your notion of how it all went down.

To be clear, I don't know any more than anyone else does, who has only information garnered from media coverage. I'm not sold it was race-motivated.

If I had to guess (and that is all it would be) - I would guess that "Yeah, Zimmerman followed the guy and hassled him, then broke off. The kid thought "Screw this. I'm not gonna get hassled like that" and then started to try and administer the *** kicking."



*Edited to add last thoughts


----------



## Sythen (25 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I'm not sold it was race-motivated.



Also, something that people forget to mention is that Zimmerman is actually Mexican, not white. I am not saying only white's can do race related offenses, just that some elements are trying to set this up as white vs black.. Its not the 1960's anymore.. Although racism still exists, someone needs to tell Al Sharpton that "whitie" isn't out to get him.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2012)

Sadly, the Legacy Media does this sort of thing all the time, rapidly shooting a story on the airwaves without any real investigation or fact checking. If the "story" fits the "narrative", then it gets lots of airplay, follow up and so on, while as soon as it does not fit the "narrative", it gets dropped like a rock.

Other blatant examples of media bias can be found when reporting wrongdoing by politicians, in the US, Republicans are paraded through the public square whereas you have to play "identify the party" many times if a Democrat is caught. Covering up is also rife, John Edwards is a classic case in point (he has just recently been identified again in a "Million Dollar Madam" sex scandal, there is no reporting on how long he has been involved with this).

Of course, we are well aware of this as well in Canada; compare the level of coverage and depth of investigation to the various faux scandals raised against this government vs real (and in many cases, still open) scandals such as the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle", Shawinigate, ADSCAM or the unpaid loans of LPC leadership candidates (which have been open so long that by law they are now illegal campaign contributions). 

Sadly, we are probably going to see floods of this sort of reporting from the US as the campaign moves forward in order to distract from the real issues like 11% unemployment, dismal economic growth, rapidly rising energy and food prices and the uncertain security situation in the world (and of course,  Administration policies which have amplified these problems).


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2012)

You are all wrong.

From a source no more impeachable than Geraldo Rivera - Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie.

Think we can put this aside, and get back to more election worthy discussion, such as etch-a-sketch gate? ;D


----------



## larry Strong (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Okay, okay. I submit.
> 
> Trayvon Martin might have been some sort of kung fu fighter. So it was totally legitimate for him to be shot dead. Okay. I'm glad we've put that one to bed.
> 
> :facepalm:



Be so kind to show me where I stated it was a legitimate shooting. You discounted Bruce's post, and for the record I don't believe he was stating that the young fellow was an MMA expert, just that it is possible for smaller people to have the were with all to be tough. Have the common decency in the future to avoid putting words in my mouth.....Jesus Christ you can be a absolute..........


----------



## Redeye (25 Mar 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Also, something that people forget to mention is that Zimmerman is actually Mexican, not white. I am not saying only white's can do race related offenses, just that some elements are trying to set this up as white vs black.. Its not the 1960's anymore.. Although racism still exists, someone needs to tell Al Sharpton that "whitie" isn't out to get him.



I've seen him variously reported that he's "half-Peruvian" or "white hispanic", never Mexican - but it seems no one has a straight answer on that. And I agree that it shouldn't matter, and it's being spun that way because it's not exactly the first time that something like this has happened. Although it sounds from various sources like what exactly he said is disputed, there are reports that he used a racial slur while on the phone with the cops. Also, FWIW, Hispanic people can be racist too.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2012)

Hmm.  Zimmerman. Mexican.

Google German Telegram.

More random synaptic surges.  ;D
Great for devising conspiracies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You are all wrong.
> 
> From a source no more impeachable than Geraldo Rivera - Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie.
> 
> Think we can put this aside, and get back to more election worthy discussion, such as etch-a-sketch gate? ;D




I've got a hunch that, no matter what happens, this is going to be an election issue.

I don't pretend to understand the "stand your ground" law except that it appears to provide some defence for Mr. Zimmerman's actions, which may not even need much defending if the only witness so far made public is to be believed. (And, absent other witnesses, who else is to be believed?) But, no matter what the law says, significant portions of the American public are excited about this - and the two most (apparently) vocal factions are at opposite end of the political spectrum and so they, probably, cancel one another out IF they are of roughly equal voting strength. (I believe black Americans vote less than most other groups, but I don't know about other groups.) I wonder if this will pit the _latino_ voters against the blacks and if it might drive some more _latinos_ away from Obama. _Latinos_ might not move to the GOP but if they just stay home, depriving Obama of their votes, then it may matter in some swing states.


----------



## Kalatzi (25 Mar 2012)

I expect that most "Factions" are going to see events such as this  as confirmation of their worst fears about their opponents. 

This and the other challenges facing the Americans will make for an extra-crunchy nasty campaign when it gets under way, likely to make our politics look  absolutely Barney-like in comparison. 

I don't take any satisfaction in this, like it or not their challenges impact ours. 

I just hope that somehow tings will calm down, for all our sake's


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Mar 2012)

It's nice to see that instead of using this unfortunate incident to have a rational discussion on such issues as race and gun control, the politicians in the US have decided to capitalize on a families pain by using it for political reasons.  At the end of the day, whether the guy who shot Tayvan was white, hispanic, black, or from the same place as  Mork and Mindy, the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.  Further, one might also suggest that the requirement for neighbourhoods to have what essentially amount to roving and clearance patrols speaks a great deal to both the overall level, or perception thereof, of crime and race relations in that area.

I would respect greatly a LEADER (neither Obama or Romney fit this bill) who actually asked these questions and delved into the deeper issues.  Instead, left yells at right, right yells at left, and a kid gets buried.  

The one interesting point I would bring up is the recent ruling to allow aboriginals in Canada to have their histories taken into account.  When one looks at this case, isn't this already happening in the media in terms of the shooter being a latino? Does being a trigger happy, bigot Latino make shooting a black person any better than a white person doing it? What if it was a black person shooting a white? What if he had shot a gay guy?  or a jew? or a woman? I suggest that our collective willingness to apply racial stereotypes to such incidents for both victim and shooter state more about our societies than the incident itself.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much in the centre of the spectrum.


The fact that you're now feeling the need to post this in multiple threads suggests that the content of your posts is leading people to a different conclusion.

To bastardize JW Riley, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its self-proclaiming that it's _really_ an eagle is meaningless.....particularly given its continued, smugly superior duck-like behaviour."


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To bastardize JW Riley, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its self-proclaiming that it's _really_ an eagle is meaningless.....particularly given its continued, smugly superior duck-like behaviour."


Your logic, sir, is impeccable.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2012)

Instapundit with a roundup of coverage, and a chilling prediction by one of his readers:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/  26 March 2012



> #NARRATIVEFAIL: Police: Trayvon Martin Slammed Zimmerman’s Head Into Sidewalk Several Times.
> 
> With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.
> 
> ...



And also on Instapundit today, open mike moments which are very illuminating as to the mindset of the Administration:



> HOT MIC ALERT: Obama to Medvedev: I’ll totally cave on missile defense in my second term if Putin will give me “space.” “Obama won’t share these plans with the American people. However, he’ll share them with the Russians, and ask for their help in influencing the election. . . . What other nations has Obama asked for ‘space’ on American foreign and national-security policy so that he can win a second term? And what American interests is Obama willing to trade for that ‘space’?”
> 
> Related: President Hot Mic can’t wait for a second term (Update: The bigger question): “Notice how the Obama captured when he doesn’t think he is being recorded is so differenct from campaign Obama. The ‘bitter clinger’ remarks and the Netanyahu put-down are the most memorable. And there are the hot mic sound bites which the media won’t release, like CBS refusing to release the full audio of Obama’s comments about Paul Ryan, and the LA Times holding back the Khalidi tape. The most recent hot mic is in many ways the most important, because it demonstrates once again that unrestrained by the need for reelection, Obama is going to go to town.”


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Mar 2012)

Two people who are critical of the parts played by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in the Trayvom tragedy. 

First, a former president of the NAACP:



> Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin
> By Alex Pappas - The Daily Caller   2:17 PM 03/26/2012
> 
> Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”
> ...



 Article Link. 

And from former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain:



> Cain: ‘Swirling rhetoric,’ ‘war of words’ in Trayvon case must stop, facts are needed before rushing to judgment
> By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller   11:10 AM 03/26/2012
> 
> Former Republican presidential candidate and businessman Herman Cain told The Daily Caller he’s concerned that the facts of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s killing may be getting lost amid the heated political and racial rhetoric surrounding the case.
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Mar 2012)

> the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.  Further, one might also suggest that the requirement for neighbourhoods to have what essentially amount to roving and clearance patrols speaks a great deal to both the overall level, or perception thereof, of crime and race relations in that area.



OK - I chewed on this for a day and it's still bugging me. You are RTFO. Talk about Henny Penney...  Neighborhood Watch programs are generally touted by the feds and sponsored by local police agencies. I formed a Block Watch in a community I lived in. Firearms laws are a separate matter, entirely and are unrelated to the Neighborhood Watch stuff. One may argue there is a potential for disaster when the two concepts converge but I can tell you all Block Watch programs are about observation and reporting, not armed conflict.

http://www.usaonwatch.org/

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/prevention/programs/neighborhoodwatch.shtml


----------



## Infanteer (27 Mar 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> the real issues are that the Floridas laws permit armed persons, essentially mercenaries, to roam through the streets and make life and death decisions that Canadian officers in AFGHANISTAN weren't permitted to make.



Any other dumb comments to add to the thread?


----------



## Redeye (27 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> OK - I chewed on this for a day and it's still bugging me. You are RTFO. Talk about Henny Penney...  Neighborhood Watch programs are generally touted by the feds and sponsored by local police agencies. I formed a Block Watch in a community I lived in. Firearms laws are a separate matter, entirely and are unrelated to the Neighborhood Watch stuff. One may argue there is a potential for disaster when the two concepts converge but I can tell you all Block Watch programs are about observation and reporting, not armed conflict.
> 
> http://www.usaonwatch.org/
> 
> http://www.sandiego.gov/police/services/prevention/programs/neighborhoodwatch.shtml



I agree that conflating this with Neighborhood Watch concepts doesn't make sense. There's been a lot of reports that Zimmerman wasn't part of any sort of sanctioned Neighborhood Watch, and others that say he was - but either way I can't see how there's much legitimacy to any of this.

So, on the topic of the election again, have you all seen Herman Cain's latest absolutely bizarre "ad"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpN5C1_flQ

Stipulated that the guy isn't an actual contender for the White House and never was, but it seems like he's got something to say, it's just so absurdly presented that no one can really figure it out.

I suspect, that like Sarah Palin, he will probably inject himself into campaigning in some way once the primary is sorted out, but I can't figure out to what end nor really predict the impact. For now, I can only just shake my head at what he puts out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

At the risk of dragging this thread back towards the topic, it appears, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ that Newt Gingrich can see the writing on the wall:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/gingrich-pledges-to-support-romney-if-he-clinches-nomination/article2383232/


> Gingrich pledges to support Romney if he clinches nomination
> 
> BRIAN WITTE
> 
> ...




It's pretty clear that nearly half of the Republican base do not like Mitt Romney; he is, after all, a moderate - the sort of person for whom about half of Americans are inclined to vote.

If the _Obamacare_ statute is declared unconstitutional by the USSC then Obama's first term achievements look pretty unimpressive; maybe a lot of folks, enough to tip the balance, will think that _Romneycare_ is a better aletrnative and Barack Obama will be a one term wonder.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2012)

Intensive and intrusive data collection is going to be a feature of any election from now on. This has all sorts of unpleasant potential; do you really want the current mayor to know who you supported the next time you apply for a permit or zoning variance?

So long as there is a clear and enforceable understanding that the databases are purged after an election, then there is no reason that political parties should not do this during a campaign, but the idea of this information being held indefinitely is creepy at best (think of Facebook and its ability to release your data without your concurrence)

http://www.propublica.org/article/three-things-we-dont-know-about-obamas-massive-voter-database



> *Three Things We Don’t Know About Obama’s Massive Voter Database*
> by Lois Beckett
> ProPublica, March 27, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2012)

And a prediction for the Senate:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327883.php



> you are looking at a 58R-40D-2I Senate in the map above. New Mexico, Hawaii, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Connecticut are the next batch of Democrat-held seats to fall after the already projected D losses of Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, and Florida, in this scenario. King still wins Maine.


----------



## cupper (28 Mar 2012)

A little optimistic about Virginia. LAtest polls show Obama leading any of the GOP candidates, and the race for Senate is tight within the margin of error.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2012)

It is only a prediction, although this ongoing Samizdat campaign may tip the balance:


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2012)

And it just goes to the point that the voting populous is ignorant of the facts. :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And it just goes to the point that the voting populous is ignorant of the facts. :facepalm:



The fact that gas and energy prices are rapidly escalating? The fact that the administration has *explicitly* embarked on policies that restrict energy output, thus distorting the market and driving prices up? (The note with then candidate Obama's statement about energy prices is only one of numerous statements by him and administration officials on this topic. Stephen Chu is another outspoken proponent of driving prices up).

Pray tell, what facts are the voters ignorant of?


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2012)

I'll let my two previous posts speak for themselves.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> First off, oil production has increased each year since the Obama Administration came in, where as oil production continually decreased during the Bush years.
> 
> http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
> 
> ...



AND



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Also, a little perspective on historical gas price data. Things aren't as bad as they have been in the past.
> 
> http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
> 
> ...



op:


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2012)

Oh, and at the risk of repeating myself  

They call it THE WORLD PRICE OF OIL for a reason.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2012)

Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.

Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.

The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2012)

Some more food for thought, the Saudis want cheaper oil too:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/29/saudis-say-we-want-cheap-oil-too.html


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.
> 
> Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.
> 
> The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.



First off, what supply restriction are you referring to? There has been no reports of supply restriction that I am aware of. :dunno: Production is running at capacity. You can put as much oil into the system as you want, but gas ain't gonna come out any faster.

Second, the point I am making is this (repeating myself for the third time ;D)


> the President, be it Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Bush, Clinton or anyone else has no ability to control the price of oil and gas.



Third, The Bush release of the strategic oil reserve was an attempt to bring oil down from a June high of $4.05. It had a narrow effect of bringing it back down to $3.70 just before the economic collapse in September. The bigger contribution to the gas price crash was a perceive and actual decline in demand. Perceived in the oil markets in anticipation of demand reduction as companies laid people off, shut down production lines and so forth, so they moved money out of the oil markets in an attempt to prevent losses on oil futures, The there was an actual reduction in demand as the perception became reality. By June 2009 gas prices rebounded back to $2.65 and held pretty much steady for  the next year and a half, when the GOP had it's election victory. Then gas prices begin to rise steadily again as the Arab Spring begins to create uncertainty in the world oil markets. And we've been fluctuating between $3.25 and $4.00 ever since.

Fourth, opening up drilling in 2008 had no effect on oil prices. (with a capital period!  ) It created no change in oil supply, because it typically takes several years from getting drilling permits to bringing a production well on line. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party could scream "Drill Baby Drill" all they wanted, but the markets function on reality, not fantasy.

Fifth, Oil pricing in the past year has been running counter to demand theory. Oil demand has decreased as the global economic crisis has gotten worse, lurching from one hit to another. However world oil prices have steadily increased.

Now, having said all of that, I get your point that the voter only cares about how this all impacts him / her. I would not expect any other reaction. But when things haven't changed after having turfed Obama out of office, and we hit $5.00 gas next summer, who do they blame? And what can they do? They can't kick the new guy out for another 4 years.

They'll just have to admit "sometimes life sucks" and build a bridge and get over it.

Because the alternative isn't much better:


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Voters see the price at the pump daily, and are aware of some of the reasons that supply has been restricted (the huge Keystone XL brew-up in the media has seen to that). Note 2 that mentions ANWAR and offshore drilling shows more of the factors are known to the general public.



And a good junk of voters understand that neither of those factors are significantly impacting gas prices.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Voters can indeed blame the Administration for changes in prices; I notice your articles did not mention the price of oil crashed when President George W Bush signed an executive order opening up large areas to drilling  in 2008 (well in advance of any actual drilling). Many voters are aware of the statements the administration officials and the President have made about the price of energy, and won't be shy to remind others. While making price comparisons in normalized dollars may demonstrate the relative price of fuel has not changed, ordinary people who go to the pump are not thinking in those terms. As well, since the price of energy is embedded in so many items, the discretionary income of Americans is still being eroded by inflationary pressures (the flooding of the US economy with trillions of dollars of stimulus and deficit spending isn't helping either, but that is a different story), so in real terms, voters are getting worse off.



That illustrates that speculators swing prices fairly dramatically. Notable that prices did not stay where they were. Also notable that cupper's post illustrates why these supposed factors are unlikely to have any impact on underlying prices of gas (excluding speculation).



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Samizdat campaign will have immediate impact on the voters, since it ties cause and effect together right at the gas pump in a way that legacy media or even "social media" does not.



Honestly, I'd love to see this alternate universe in which you live.

What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it. If in the highly unlikely event that Mr. Obama loses, how will President Romney (LOL) explain to the American public why gas prices haven't moved, particularly when sabre rattling with Iran is likely to continue?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2012)

>What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it.

*unrestrained laughter*

How could I ever have imagined that a president (even a former president) might be blamed for every bad thing under the sun when the answer is just a bit of a discussion.  Obama will put on a sweater and give a fireside chat and all will be well as the voters nod their heads and say, "Aaaah...of course".


----------



## Redeye (30 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What I'm sure will happen during the campaign, if it becomes an issue, is a bit of a discussion, at a level even the most ignorant voter can understand, that the President doesn't control prices of a global commodity, and that the reality shows that there's little that can be done about it.
> 
> *unrestrained laughter*
> 
> How could I ever have imagined that a president (even a former president) might be blamed for every bad thing under the sun when the answer is just a bit of a discussion.  Obama will put on a sweater and give a fireside chat and all will be well as the voters nod their heads and say, "Aaaah...of course".



If it comes up in debates, it'll take a point blank question - How will you, Mr. Romney (presuming he's the nominee) actually reduce gas prices? Followed by unleashing the facts of the matter, including those cupper referenced above.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2012)

The alternate universe explanation is interesting; George W. Bush could apparently cause everything; and the evidence is quite clear he did cause a rapid reduction in global oil prices byu signing the executive order opening up areas for drilling in 2008.

OTOH your argument seems to be situational: perhaps only Presidents who's names are George W Bush can effect change?

Once again you fail to take into account the very public statements by the President and members of the administration, both as to how the public see them and also as to how the global market sees them. As well, you seem to discount the impact of the Samizdat campaign: a person pulling up to a pump and being already disgruntled by + 4.00/gallon at the pump now has an immidiate reminder of who is to blame. Multiply that by millions of people filling up nation wide...


----------



## Haletown (30 Mar 2012)

POTUS Obama taking credit for current US oil production and the amount of pipeline put in the ground in the time period of his Administration is like the bantam rooster who showed up at dawn, did a few cockle-doodle-doos and then takes credit for the day that happened. 


Trying to take credit for things he didn't do is not something that will be overlooked by many Americans.  He can't run on the hopey-changey thingy again because he has a track record that can be clearly highlighted in the election advertising campaign. He is leading an Administration that is clearly hostile to oil & gas development and to pretzel himself now into a position portraying him as a great supporter of petroleum is a target rich environment for GOP campaign staff.


----------



## cupper (30 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> and the evidence is quite clear he did cause a rapid reduction in global oil prices byu signing the executive order opening up areas for drilling in 2008.



Sorry, I have to call you on this. Show me the evidence.

I've shown quite clearly from several sources that Bush's exec order had no effect on the price of oil in the fall or 2008.

I've shown quite clearly that the drop in oil prices on the world market (and by correlation gas prices) between June and December 2008 can only be attributed to two things:

1) The Bush Administration's decision to release oil from the strategic oil reserves in June 2008, and 

2) The collapse of the financial markets in September of 2008.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2012)

There are quite a few articles posted in varous threads which outline the timeline, cause and effect of the 2008 Executive order opening up new areas for drilling. Since you choose to attribute different causes and effects, there is nothing more for me to do here.

However, since shaping narratives is a huge part of this election cycle, here is a deconstruction of the "racist" narrative which has been making the rounds (and was shaped to a large extent by the President himself). Notice the various facts the blogger finds, and how they contradict the accepted story. Essentially what we have is a tragedy that is beeing escalated for political purposes, starting with a rush to judgement without all the facts being known, followed by selective editing and very limited follow up to support the narrative. 

Since the narrative is starting to collapse, I suspect this tragedy will be dropped by the media and self promoters, but we will be seeing these sorts of inflamitory stories between now and November. (The mirror image is watching stories about Iraq, Afghanistan, "Gitmo" and so on mostly evaporate after November 2008):

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.ca/2012/03/do-you-trust-news-from-market-ticker.html



> *Do You Trust ‘THE NEWS’? From The Market Ticker*
> NBC Is The Skittle Network
> 
> Are you*****ed off yet? You will be.
> ...


----------



## cupper (31 Mar 2012)

I expect the Trayvon Martin story to fade from the media long before we have finalized the GOP race. It's not going to be a factor in the general election.

And the Media will move on to a new flavour of the moment. That's just how today's 24-hour news cycle flows.


----------



## cupper (31 Mar 2012)

As this election cycle continues however, I expect this to become a bigger story week by week.

*Take The Money And Run For Office*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/26/149390968/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

This is an abridged version of a story airing this weekend on This American Life. The story is part of our series on money in politics.

We imagine lobbyists stalking the halls of Congress, trying to influence lawmakers with cash. But often, it's the other way around: Members of Congress stalk lobbyists, looking for contributions.

"Most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, shocked — if they knew how much time a U.S. Senator spends raising money," Sen. Dick Durbin told us.

There are special call centers across the street from the Capitol where Senators and Congressmen sit, often for hours a day, calling potential donors to ask for money.

And lawmakers and their staffs are constantly trying to find lobbyists to organize fundraisers. For the most part, these are much more mundane than the fancy black-tie galas you sometimes hear about on the news.

Here is a link to to full story on This American Life. 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office

I listened to it this morning, it's definitely an eye opener, and makes me even more cynical about anyone running for elected office.

The most interesting portion is the interview with John McCain and Russ Feingold and their view of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. McCain raises an excellent question regarding the Court's ability to rule on such matters that they clearly had no understanding of.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Apr 2012)

Its policy like this that have contributed to the high fuel prices.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/obama-oks-oil-exploration-along-atlantic-coast-but-not-drilling/

Obama OKs Oil Exploration Along Atlantic Coast, But Not Drilling

The Obama administration today endorsed new oil and gas exploration along the Atlantic Coast, setting the stage for possible future drilling lease sales.

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

It also comes as President Obama faces mounting pressure over high gas prices and criticism from Republicans that he has opposed more drilling for oil.

“Making decisions based on sound science, public input and the best information available is a critical component to this administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

But Republicans say the announcement is simply for show. Obama delayed and then cancelled a planned 2011 drilling lease sale for areas off the Virginia coast following the BP oil spill in the Gulf.

There are also no guarantees the administration will approve drilling permits at the end of the environmental review.

“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.

The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.

“If President Obama truly wanted to support energy production in the Atlantic, he would immediately reinstate the lease sale that he canceled.”

House Republicans say approving drilling off the Virginia coast would create at least 2,000 jobs and produce 750 million barrels of oil.


----------



## cupper (1 Apr 2012)

:facepalm:


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Apr 2012)

>McCain raises an excellent question regarding the Court's ability to rule on such matters that they clearly had no understanding of.

Indeed; it's almost as bad as legislatures creating and passing legislation on matters they clearly have no understanding of.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >McCain raises an excellent question regarding the Court's ability to rule on such matters that they clearly had no understanding of.
> 
> Indeed; it's almost as bad as legislatures creating and passing legislation on matters they clearly have no understanding of.



Situations improved when legislators are given three days to review 1000 pages of legislation (to which any manner of irrelevancies can be appended) and the Court is offered 2700 pages to describe the same legislation and asked to rule on it.

Brevity is not just the soul of wit.


----------



## Redeye (3 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The alternate universe explanation is interesting; George W. Bush could apparently cause everything; and the evidence is quite clear he did cause a rapid reduction in global oil prices byu signing the executive order opening up areas for drilling in 2008.



Correlation doesn't imply causation. As has been aptly illustrated there is no evidence which supports this by showing causation.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> OTOH your argument seems to be situational: perhaps only Presidents who's names are George W Bush can effect change?



This is an even more ridiculous statement. No President can control the global market for a commodity, period.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Once again you fail to take into account the very public statements by the President and members of the administration, both as to how the public see them and also as to how the global market sees them. As well, you seem to discount the impact of the Samizdat campaign: a person pulling up to a pump and being already disgruntled by + 4.00/gallon at the pump now has an immidiate reminder of who is to blame. Multiply that by millions of people filling up nation wide...



Well, I doubt the campaign is that widespread, or is getting that much attention, other than in the right's echo chamber dreamworld. Why not? Because I suspect that people are going to be demanding more. And an honest candidate will be forced to concede the reality - that gas prices cannot be controlled by the White House. And that's leaving aside the pervasive rich irony of the bold defenders of the free market whining about prices and demanding government do something about it all at once.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2012)

<an honest candidate

Good luck with that, Diogenes.


----------



## cupper (3 Apr 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> <an honest candidate
> 
> Good luck with that, Diogenes.



Come on. How much more honest can you get than Mitt? >


----------



## Haletown (4 Apr 2012)

The election ads are starting . . . looks like it will an outstanding crop this time.  Both sides have big bucks to spend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs


----------



## exabedtech (5 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The election ads are starting . . . looks like it will an outstanding crop this time.  Both sides have big bucks to spend.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs



Nice one!  lol  Love it!  Not sure what exactly the message here is... perhaps that those evil Russians are gonna get us if Obama wins?  Think i'll get back to work on my bunker and watch Red Dawn a few times.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The election ads are starting . . . looks like it will an outstanding crop this time.  Both sides have big bucks to spend.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs



As if gun sales in the US of A aren't high enough already.


----------



## Kalatzi (5 Apr 2012)

Think I'll get back to work on my bunker and watch Red Dawn a few times

Actually Red Dawn remake is scheduled for Nov 2012 release.  :shooter2:

Related - Wonder what Obama has been smoking when he takes shots at the "Unelected" Supreme court. 

It's going to be extra nasty


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2012)

Hardly the sort of campaign that I would choose (defending real unemployment rates of over 10% and a stagnant and sluggish economy? Defending crony capitalism and offering more of the same?), but this is the current meme the Administration and the Democrats are going with:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/04/06/Obamas-Big-Spending-Vision-Gives-Romney-an-Edge.aspx?p=1



> *Obama's Big Spending Vision Gives Romney an Edge*
> By EDWARD MORRISSEY, The Fiscal Times April 6, 2012
> 
> With the Republican nomination almost in the bag, Barack Obama and his likely opponent, Mitt Romney gave competing visions of America in two dramatic speeches this week.  Both argued for change, but only one offered any kind of course correction at all.
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Apr 2012)

The GOP could face a huge voter backlash if they continue to overreach based on misinterpretation of the 2010 election results.

Prime example: The GOP in Michigan have essentially suspended the democratic process and ignored the State Constitution in order to push through an agenda that has suspended union rights, forced takeover of duly elected local government, eliminated government benefits to domestic partners of state employees, along with other hot button issues which have resulted in a backlash in other states and at the federal level.

As background, back in the 60's prior to Mitt Romney's father becoming Governor, Micigan amended it's Constitution to require a waiting period of 90 days after the term ends before any law passed in that term comes into effect. So a law passed in January would not come into effect until March of the next year, as the term essentially runs the full calendar year. This was to allow the public time to petition for a referendum to repeal laws that were unpopular.

However, the amendment includes a clause to allow for a law to come into immediate effect upon consent by a 2/3 majority in both the State House and Senate. This allows laws intended to address urgent matters to be able to come into force when needed.

Since taking control of both House and Senate and the Governor's Office, The Michigan GOP has passed 566 bills, 546 of which received consent for immediate effect.

The problem is that the State House is split 63 GOP to 47 Dem. Not a 2/3 majority by anyone's math. So many of the bills which only passed on party line votes received immediate effect consent even though all of the Dems voted against the original legislation. Somehow the GOP were able to pull off a miracle and get a dozen Dems to vote for immediate effect.

The Democrats have sued the State Legislature in State Court to suspend the implementation of the laws under immediate effect. They won the first round and received an injunction on the implementation of the laws. The GOP as expected are planning to appeal.

If the Michigan GOP continues to overreach as they have been, it's going to be very difficult for Mitt Romney to win the State in November. And he's going to need every electoral vote he can get.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11060678-about-that-michigan-story?lite


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2012)

Behind all the thud and blunder of the campaign are these issues. Notice that where reality has set in, even Democrat Governors and Mayors have read the tea leaves and are abanoning the Blue model. I suspect that post progressive society will be growing from the bottom up as hard pressed communities abandon the blue model under fiscal pressure. Dumping programs and the staffs that run them will be the order of the day regardless of who wins the election, the downline elections will be the catalyst for true changes to the body politic and society in general:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/07/obama-nails-his-blue-colors-to-the-mast/



> *Obama Nails His Blue Colors to the Mast*
> WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
> 
> The past few years have seen a number of blue-state Democratic governors—from California to New York to Vermont—driven by dire fiscal situations to attack the blue model. Yet this tide of reform washing over the Democratic Party at the state level still hasn’t gone national.
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Apr 2012)

Here's what I read:



> Obama nails his blue



Dude, you need to provide a summary.  Seriously.


----------



## Haletown (9 Apr 2012)

Last election the New Black Panthers just intimidated voters at polling stations.  This time, they are trying to ride the Race Baiting Industry to new heights.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/08/New-Black-Panthers-Call-For-Race-War-Blood-Shed-Kill-Crackers-For-Trayvon-April-9th-Day-of-Action

I'm sure POTUS Obama will denounce these racists before his daughters can be influenced by these folks.


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Last election the New Black Panthers just intimidated voters at polling stations.  This time, they are trying to ride the Race Baiting Industry to new heights.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/08/New-Black-Panthers-Call-For-Race-War-Blood-Shed-Kill-Crackers-For-Trayvon-April-9th-Day-of-Action
> 
> I'm sure POTUS Obama will denounce these racists before his daughters can be influenced by these folks.




Like they pointed out on the Daily Show, they'll need to get more members than the same three guys the show every time they make the news.


----------



## Redeye (10 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Last election the New Black Panthers just intimidated voters at polling stations.  This time, they are trying to ride the Race Baiting Industry to new heights.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/08/New-Black-Panthers-Call-For-Race-War-Blood-Shed-Kill-Crackers-For-Trayvon-April-9th-Day-of-Action
> 
> I'm sure POTUS Obama will denounce these racists before his daughters can be influenced by these folks.



The New Black Panthers? Like, both of them?

You know that no one who's capable of thinking critically sees them as anything more than a tiny, ridiculous joke right?

You also surely know that anything that has Breitbart's name on it isn't really trustworthy, right?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The New Black Panthers? Like, both of them?


You are deliberately under-reporting their numbers. By 33%



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Like they pointed out on the Daily Show, they'll need to get more members than *the same three guys  * the show every time they make the news.



 ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2012)

You also surely know that anything that has Breitbart's name on it *from the media* isn't really trustworthy, right?


----------



## Redeye (10 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You are deliberately under-reporting their numbers. By 33%
> 
> ;D



 :rofl:

Yes, I suppose I am. Every time I see them mentioned though I have the same sort of response, the "really, you're that dumb?! response.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Apr 2012)

Apparently Santorum has/will pull the pin on his run for the Republican nomination.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Apparently Santorum has/will pull the pin on his run for the Republican nomination.



Confirmed

Here, from the CTV:



> Rick Santorum quit the U.S. presidential campaign Tuesday, clearing the way for Mitt Romney to claim the Republican nomination.
> Santorum, appearing with his family in his home state of Pennsylvania, told supporters the race for him was over, but the fight to defeat President Barack Obama in November's general election would go on.


----------



## Haletown (10 Apr 2012)

Last time out, Obama threw Wright under his bus and the media covered for him.  

So this time will the RNC have the spine to expose POTUS Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qpzHQ_PC1uI

The faux southern accent is very cool.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2012)

Lets see: the Stimulus failed, unemployment is over 10%, "Smart Diplomacy" has alienated American allies and emboldened thier enemies, food and fuel prices are exploding, and now the major argument behind the class warfare and "fairness" meme has just been exploded. (Oh, and most Americans hate Obamacare as well). It is a pretty searing argument against the GOP that despite all this, they still are not clearly ahead of the game:

http://blog.american.com/2012/04/obamas-inequality-argument-just-utterly-collapsed/



> *Obama’s inequality argument just utterly collapsed*
> By James Pethokoukis
> April 11, 2012, 9:55 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The New Black Panthers? Like, both of them?
> 
> You know that no one who's capable of thinking critically sees them as anything more than a tiny, ridiculous joke right?



Pierre Poutine was just ONE man, and apparently stole the entirety of Canadian democracy, even though there isn't any proof that a single person was denied their right to vote.  So, these guys ought to be able to at least double Pierre's effect.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Pierre Poutine was just ONE man, and apparently stole the entirety of Canadian democracy, even though there isn't any proof that a single person was denied their right to vote.  So, these guys ought to be able to at least double Pierre's effect.



That is funny..............


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> That is funny..............



Too true!!


----------



## cupper (13 Apr 2012)

Example 1 of How the Dems can blow this election:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ann-romney-responds-to-democratic-pundit-saying-she-never-worked-a-day-in-her-life/2012/04/12/gIQApstpBT_blog.html



> *Ann Romney rejects Democratic pundit’s claim that she ‘never worked a day in her life’*
> 
> The rhetorical war over women between President Obama and Mitt Romney escalated Wednesday night as Romney’s wife Ann launched a Twitter account to personally respond to a Democratic pundit who had dismissed her knowledge about the economy by saying she “never worked a day in her life.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Example 1 of How the Dems can blow this election:



Only one?  >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Apr 2012)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Move over Warren Buffett.
The White House said Friday that President Obama has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

"The president's secretary pays a slightly higher rate this year than the president on her substantially lower income," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told CNN Money.  The president's secretary is Anita J. Breckenridge, and according to White House disclosure forms, the "personal aide to the president" earns $95,000 a year.  Brundage declined to say exactly what tax rate Breckenridge paid. Earlier Friday, the White House released Obama's 2011 tax returns, which showed an adjusted gross income of $789,674 for the first family, and an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5%.
Brundage suggested the president would be willing to pay more, saying his situation illustrates "exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share."


Somehow I suspect that the media wont make as big a deal of Obama paying less % in tax than his secretary than if Romney does


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Apr 2012)

[tangent]
When people say stuff like this:


> “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we — why we worry about their future.”


 when they are talking about women who may not be employed outside the home, but instead manage a household (aka "housewife"), they are degrading the value of not only the role of a mother, but degrading the value of family.  Instead, only people who worship money count.  (eg: all they do is geared to earning some coin, not so that they can survive, but to gain some sort of wealth)

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everthing that can be counted counts.  

[/tangent]

I just don't see Mitt Romney being the kind of charismatic person to sway away the middle of the road Americans away from the snake oil salesman.


----------



## cupper (13 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Only one?  >



It's early. Give it time.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> When people say stuff like this: when they are talking about women who may not be employed outside the home, but instead manage a household (aka "housewife"), they are degrading the value of not only the role of a mother, but degrading the value of family.  Instead, only people who worship money count.  (eg: all they do is geared to earning some coin, not so that they can survive, but to gain some sort of wealth)
> 
> Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everthing that can be counted counts.
> ...



They aren't, though. They're making a statement which will resonate with a lot of people that Ann Romney does not share a common experience with those women who actually faced the economic challenge of trying to raise a family. They're not commenting on the value of the stay-at-home mother (something that even not that long ago when I was growing up seemed a lot more common than now), but rather on the idea that Romney somehow understands the struggles of the average working family, which there's little reason to believe she does. For her to make a flippant remark to try to sound like Jane Q. Housewife is rather foolish. And it's just that kind of think that helps ensure that Romney's not going to connect with a lot of people. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the tack the Dems will take.


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They aren't, though. They're making a statement which will resonate with a lot of people that Ann Romney does not share a common experience with those women who actually faced the economic challenge of trying to raise a family. They're not commenting on the value of the stay-at-home mother (something that even not that long ago when I was growing up seemed a lot more common than now), but rather on the idea that Romney somehow understands the struggles of the average working family, which there's little reason to believe she does. For her to make a flippant remark to try to sound like Jane Q. Housewife is rather foolish. And it's just that kind of think that helps ensure that Romney's not going to connect with a lot of people. At least, I'm pretty sure that's the tack the Dems will take.



Because she is so different than any middle class woman living comfortably and raising her kids then? Please, explain to me how having $5mil in savings makes a stay at home mom different than one that has say $10k in savings? Does Mrs Romney have a small army of nannies following her and her children around, or did she do it all herself? In reality, is a man (or woman) who makes $75k a year and works 9-5 daily any different than a CEO who works 9-5 daily and makes $250k? Aside from the toys they can buy, they are not really different.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Because she is so different than any middle class woman living comfortably and raising her kids then? Please, explain to me how having $5mil in savings makes a stay at home mom different than one that has say $10k in savings? Does Mrs Romney have a small army of nannies following her and her children around, or did she do it all herself? In reality, is a man (or woman) who makes $75k a year and works 9-5 daily any different than a CEO who works 9-5 daily and makes $250k? Aside from the toys they can buy, they are not really different.



Not all women have $10K in savings. And someone who makes $75K a year can live a pretty decent, comfortable life. But not everyone's like that. There's a whole lot of people who make a whole lot less than than that. The median household income in the USA is closer to $45K. Still not bad, but again not everyone makes that much.

Did Mrs. Romney have nannies? I'm not that sure. But what she didn't have is the necessity of budgeting every penny to make sure that everything that had to be paid was. She didn't shop with a calculator to make sure she didn't overdraw her bank account and make the rent cheque bounce. She didn't have to choose between taking kids to a doctor and groceries, or other tough choices like that, like a lot of real average Americans do. That's the commentary floating around over that statement. It's interesting seeing the variety of reactions. It's building on a theme of Romney appearing totally out of touch with average Americans.


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's building on a theme of Romney appearing totally out of touch with average Americans. American politics being a complete circus



FTFY.

I didn't even know PM Harper's wife's name until last Christmas (so about 5 years of being our Prime Minister), I certainly didn't know or care what the she did and how she was qualified to be sleeping with the PM and raising his kids.

EDIT: Oops, just googled it and I guess I still didn't know her name. Thought it was Lorraine not Laureen. ;D


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not all women have $10K in savings. And someone who makes $75K a year can live a pretty decent, comfortable life. But not everyone's like that. There's a whole lot of people who make a whole lot less than than that. The median household income in the USA is closer to $45K. Still not bad, but again not everyone makes that much.
> 
> Did Mrs. Romney have nannies? I'm not that sure. But what she didn't have is the necessity of budgeting every penny to make sure that everything that had to be paid was. She didn't shop with a calculator to make sure she didn't overdraw her bank account and make the rent cheque bounce. She didn't have to choose between taking kids to a doctor and groceries, or other tough choices like that, like a lot of real average Americans do. That's the commentary floating around over that statement. It's interesting seeing the variety of reactions. It's building on a theme of Romney appearing totally out of touch with average Americans.



I know I am not gonna persuade you, so I won't bother digging for links as I usually do. My point is that people who say what you're saying are essentially saying (see if I can fit saying into this sentence again) that since she has money, she has no idea what she's talking about. That because she has money, she is "out of touch with average Americans". This is fallacy at best and a dilberate attack on a woman that everyone, even Democrats, agree is a wonderful and good woman/mother. You are, in my opinion, no better than that Alberta politician that tried to attack the fact the one candidate (sorry not keeping up too much on that province's politics, fill in the names yourself)  doesn't have kids. So because she doesn't have kids, she's definitely out of touch with the average woman her age, right? So that means how can she have a useful opinion on anything regarding families? Its foolish. I know you're an Obama apologist and a Left wing loonie, but please try to have an original thought for once in your life instead of parroting whatever Left wing blog you've read most recently.  :blotto:


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

Nifty little breakdown of American debt posted on CNN (I know I know) and shared with the usual caveats:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/



> Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
> Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
> Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
> Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
> ...



More on link.

Not sure about the other links in the article as they crash my browser here at work, but an interesting breakdown. Canada must be one of those "Oil Exporting Countries".


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I know I am not gonna persuade you, so I won't bother digging for links as I usually do. My point is that people who say what you're saying are essentially saying (see if I can fit saying into this sentence again) that since she has money, she has no idea what she's talking about. That because she has money, she is "out of touch with average Americans". This is fallacy at best and a dilberate attack on a woman that everyone, even Democrats, agree is a wonderful and good woman/mother. You are, in my opinion, no better than that Alberta politician that tried to attack the fact the one candidate (sorry not keeping up too much on that province's politics, fill in the names yourself)  doesn't have kids. So because she doesn't have kids, she's definitely out of touch with the average woman her age, right? So that means how can she have a useful opinion on anything regarding families? Its foolish. I know you're an Obama apologist and a Left wing loonie, but please try to have an original thought for once in your life instead of parroting whatever Left wing blog you've read most recently.  :blotto:



I know you're not too bright at all (see, I can play that game too, but I don't), but I somewhat agree. I don't see much value to the attacks, but I also don't see why Mrs. Romney would make such an absurd statement and then be shocked when people respond to it as they did. I don't really understand the necessity for spouses of candidates to be involved in campaigning, though in American politics it seems to be that way more so than here. I'm sure Mrs. Romney has all sorts of opinions, as do most people, but the idea that she has an opinion that reflects the lives and challenges of the rest of Americans who don't live her incredibly privileged life is a little far-fetched. I don't know why she made the statement to begin with when it was so unnecessary.

The politician in Alberta is Danielle Smith - and I don't agree with that particular attack on her either. Besides, there's plenty of legitimately absurd and terrible stuff she supports without delving into that. And they're legitimate, relevant issues rather than stuff that just makes a small subset of people foam at the mouth over nothing.


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I also don't see why Mrs. Romney would make such an absurd statement and then be shocked when people respond to it as they did.



What statement did Mrs. Romney make that was so absurd? I am legitimately asking because for the last 5 mins, the only things I can find on google are her responses to what was said by Ms. Rosen. She has been dragged into the campaign, from what I can see, by Ms Rosen's comments. And yes, she has money.. But she also has raised 5 sons while battling MS.. Never worked a day in her life, indeed.



> I know you're not too bright at all (see, I can play that game too, but I don't)



Difference is I back up my words with facts whereas with you, as with all Left Wing loonies, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> What statement did Mrs. Romney make that was so absurd? I am legitimately asking because for the last 5 mins, the only things I can find on google are her responses to what was said by Ms. Rosen. She has been dragged into the campaign, from what I can see, by Ms Rosen's comments. And yes, she has money.. But she also has raised 5 sons while battling MS.. Never worked a day in her life, indeed.



Mea culpa - the absurd statement I was referring to wasn't related to Rosen's statement - it was from her suddenly created twitter account about her choice to be a stay-at-home mom. I had to go back and check into it because I apparently had the sequence of events wrong. I get Ms. Rosen's point, there's some validity to it - but the idea, likewise, that a stay-at-home mother hasn't worked a day in her life is wrong, it's that simple. Unless of course they've just had plenty of nannies etc to do it. I don't know if that's the case with Mrs. Romney, and I'm not going to speculate that it is. For what it's worth, Rosen's getting a fair bit of flak from a lot of Dems who don't see her having added any real value, but also support from those who want to see the wedge between the Romneys and the rest of America driven as deep as possible, for obvious reasons.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> Difference is I back up my words with facts whereas with you, as with all Left Wing loonies, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.



Yeah, right... of course you do. :eyeroll: I'm not a lefty - I'm just a recovering conservative. I saw the light and realized that a) I can't hang with social conservatives because I can't stand them and b) I don't like the hypocrisy that's an integral part of and strict ideology. I don't like it on the left any more than the right which settles me as being a fairly pragmatic person. Social liberal, fiscal moderate and generally a realist. And trust me, the right's pretty good at inventing their own facts to make whatever story they want.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Apr 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm sure Mrs. Romney has all sorts of opinions, as do most people, but the idea that she has an opinion that reflects the lives and challenges of the rest of Americans who don't live her incredibly privileged life is a little far-fetched. I don't know why she made the statement to begin with when it was so unnecessary.



"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction." -Michelle Obama

Michelle also talks a lot about family, exercise, etc and leads a very priveleged existence, and has for some time.  Mrs Romney needs to be attacked no more for her wealth and choices than Mrs. Obama does.  

Further, the point of the first quote is to show how one person can say something that is obviously inflammatory (first time in her adult life she is proud of her country? Really?) and not get any real flak or negative press, and another can say something similar and be crucified (Example Obama and the beauty queen with almost the exact same quote on gay marriage, and the press results)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2012)

> I'm sure Mrs. Romney has all sorts of opinions, as do most people, but the idea that she has an opinion that reflects the lives and challenges of the rest of Americans who don't live her incredibly privileged life is a little far-fetched.



I guess the same could be said about Hillary Clinton and all the rest of those highly placed mothers, in the Obama administration. After all, Hillary's marriage, child upbringing and family life are just the ticket for all of those women out there looking for a role model to show them how you can mix a career and family life :


----------



## Redeye (14 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess the same could be said about Hillary Clinton and all the rest of those highly placed mothers, in the Obama administration. After all, Hillary's marriage, child upbringing and family life are just the ticket for all of those women out there looking for a role model to show them how you can mix a career and family life :



Hence the rather pointless nature of the comment, which was not really of any benefit to discourse.


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Because she is so different than any middle class woman living comfortably and raising her kids then? Please, explain to me how having $5mil in savings makes a stay at home mom different than one that has say $10k in savings? Does Mrs Romney have a small army of nannies following her and her children around, or did she do it all herself? In reality, is a man (or woman) who makes $75k a year and works 9-5 daily any different than a CEO who works 9-5 daily and makes $250k? Aside from the toys they can buy, they are not really different.



I'm sorry, but if you don't see how there is a difference between life as a CEO and life as an average worker, then you really shouldn't be commenting on this. And no, the difference is not in the toys they can buy. :


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Apr 2012)

>But what she didn't have is the necessity of budgeting every penny to make sure that everything that had to be paid was.

But that isn't the experience of the majority either.  I doubt many housewives in the US worry about where the next meal or the rent/mortgage payment is, or shop with a calculator, or choose between doctor and groceries any more than they choose between TV subscriptions and groceries.

As some wag pointed out (and I paraphrase), if the Romneys are unqualified to comment on those issues, the Obamas are unqualified - by their lack of experience - to comment on job creation issues.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Apr 2012)

I'm voting for "New Coke".


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Apr 2012)

> I know you're an Obama apologist and a Left wing loonie, but please try to have an original thought for once in your life instead of parroting whatever Left wing blog you've read most recently.



Sythen - enough with the left-wing loonie stuff. Stick to the debate.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Apr 2012)

> I know you're an Obama apologist and a Left wing loonie, but please try to have an original thought for once in your life instead of parroting whatever Left wing blog you've read most recently.





			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Sythen - enough with the left-wing loonie stuff. Stick to the debate.
> 
> Army.ca Staff



I would offer that Sythen's post was rather accurate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2012)

The US "culture wars" have infected us, here on Army.ca, too. Some of us seem incapable of admitting that President Obama is not a rabid, bomb throwing communist or that Mitt Romney is not an evil capitalist exploiter. 

Now, personally and based on my reading of their respective records, I think Romney is the more _moderate_, the more _middle of the road_ of the two, but either will, most likely, be constrained by a Congress that will, finally, be seized with the issue of America's massive indebtedness.

Civilization as we know it will not end if Barack Obama is a two term president, no more than if he serves just one term.

It is, it must be, possible for _reasonable_ men and women to disagree about politics, to disagree fundamentally and on principle; but _reasonable_ men and women must be able to disagree civilly - otherwise they are, by definition, less than _reasonable_, by which I mean that they are childish rather than grown up.

</rant>


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Apr 2012)

> I would offer that Sythen's post was rather accurate.



Regardless, name calling isn't tolerated - it takes away from the main points of the argument. As a Site Moderator I felt this was creeping up on the edges of acceptability per the site guidelines, so I made a statement to that effect. You are welcome to now re-focus on the discussion at hand.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some of us seem incapable of admitting that President Obama is not a rabid, bomb throwing communist or that Mitt Romney is not an evil capitalist exploiter.



No arguement on your assessment of either one Edward. I'll also easily admit it.


----------



## MJP (14 Apr 2012)

Every time I come to this thread, it reminds me of this.


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

> I'm sorry, but if you don't see how there is a difference between life as a CEO and life as an average worker, then you really shouldn't be commenting on this. And no, the difference is not in the toys they can buy.



Please then, enlighten me cupper. Explain to me how two people, both working 9-5 jobs to support their families are any different, aside from the money they earn? Or are you one of the people who believe people are born CEO's and it takes no hard work or dedication working the crappy jobs to get there? If so, you can join the Occupy movement and demand a management position in a company based on a Master's degree in basketweaving  :



> But that isn't the experience of the majority either.  I doubt many housewives in the US worry about where the next meal or the rent/mortgage payment is, or shop with a calculator, or choose between doctor and groceries any more than they choose between TV subscriptions and groceries.



Brad Sallows pretty much hit it bang on here. Have nothing extra to add as it he summed up what I was trying to say in a much better way.



> I'm voting for "New Coke".



Pretty sure that makes you a Communist  :warstory:



> The US "culture wars" have infected us, here on Army.ca, too. Some of us seem incapable of admitting that President Obama is not a rabid, bomb throwing communist or that Mitt Romney is not an evil capitalist exploiter.
> 
> Now, personally and based on my reading of their respective records, I think Romney is the more moderate, the more middle of the road of the two, but either will, most likely, be constrained by a Congress that will, finally, be seized with the issue of America's massive indebtedness.
> 
> ...



I would love to agree with you, Mr Cambell, and in part I do. You are definitely right, the world will not end if either is elected. In fact, I see more of the same coming from Romney, so he will not fix a lot of the things that need fixing. I want to see the American people send a message to their politicians though, that incompetent leadership will NOT be rewarded. No politician is perfect, and nitpicking every single detail of their professional lives is not constructive at all, however Obama has proven he lacks the leadership necessary to even begin working towards a solution. Romney did an adequate job serving as Governor of Mass, therefore if things are going to be more of the same, I'd take someone with some experience when the big decisions come then someone who has proven he can't lead.

You also mention being constrained by congress, but who was that MSNBC personality who said Obama should bypass the "bought congress" and essentially take power to push things through he wanted? If I were home, I'd post links to it from youtube, but instead of being brushed off as an extremeist, this guy was applauded and held up as a hero for saying these things. In the next term, if congress puts a stop to some of the Obama initiatives, who is to say he won't try?


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Please then, enlighten me cupper. Explain to me how two people, both working 9-5 jobs to support their families are any different, aside from the money they earn? Or are you one of the people who believe people are born CEO's and it takes no hard work or dedication working the crappy jobs to get there? If so, you can join the Occupy movement and demand a management position in a company based on a Master's degree in basketweaving  :



I'll give you the benefit that you understand that not everyone has a 9 to 5 white collar office job. It is rare to have a CEO that has worked their way up from the bottom most job in the organization. Many start in lower / middle management depending on their academic background. But to say that there is no difference between the guy who pushes a wrench on the factory floor and the guy who sits in the boardroom. Or the guy who works as a laborer on a construction site vs the project manager working in the site trailer and the President of the construction firm.

The average worker has the stress of wondering if his paycheck will stretch until the next payday. What will happen if he gets injured on the job. If he can afford to put the kids through college. If he will be able to retire at 65 or need to keep working. Why his dipstick of a boss can't understand that there is a difference between their lives even though they both work 9-5   >

Yes the CEO has stresses about keeping the company solvent, providing a sufficient return on investment for the shareholders, wether the proletariate will rise up in revolt and impose marxist values upon the corporation. ;D

What this comes down to is can Mitt Romney, multi-millionare investment banker who inherited his fortune and status relate to the plight of the common man? He probable can, but does not come across well, when he makes statements like "Corporations are people too my friend" "Who much do you want to bet? $10,000?" "My wife has two Cadillacs"

op:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> What this comes down to is can Mitt Romney, multi-millionare investment banker who inherited his fortune and status relate to the plight of the common man? He probable can, but does not come across well, when he makes statements like "Corporations are people too my friend" "Who much do you want to bet? $10,000?" "My wife has two Cadillacs"



Just to play devil's advocate, what really is the requirement for Mitt Romney to prove that he relates 100% to the common man? He was already governor of a state, and from anything I can read, ran it pretty well, including implementing his own form of medical care.  

If I'm a US voter, I want someone who has proven he has the economic acumen and ability to fix the economy, not someone who I think I could chat with about the NFL draft.  As a former CEO and the governor of a MAJOR, northern, liberal state, I would trust that Romney has the ability to fix the economy.

Obama, on the other hand, was a community organizer, a 1 term senator, and former constitutional lawyer.  None of his plans for the economy have worked, and the constant blaming of the economy on Bush is getting old.  At some point, the voters have to ask if Obama is either incompetent and unable to fix Bush's errors, or if he is just trying to cover up the problems.


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'll give you the benefit that you understand that not everyone has a 9 to 5 white collar office job. It is rare to have a CEO that has worked their way up from the bottom most job in the organization. Many start in lower / middle management depending on their academic background. But to say that there is no difference between the guy who pushes a wrench on the factory floor and the guy who sits in the boardroom. Or the guy who works as a laborer on a construction site vs the project manager working in the site trailer and the President of the construction firm.
> 
> The average worker has the stress of wondering if his paycheck will stretch until the next payday. What will happen if he gets injured on the job. If he can afford to put the kids through college. If he will be able to retire at 65 or need to keep working. Why his dipstick of a boss can't understand that there is a difference between their lives even though they both work 9-5   >
> 
> ...



wow really? : Are you trolling or are you serious? A guy "who pushes a wrench on the factory floor"? Mechanics make VERY good money, and most factory workers are heavily unionized. By this logic, on military exercise when my Platoon Commander is getting orders, I am obviously working harder than him because I help dig his trench while he just does paper work? Guess he has no place leading me because he doesn't understand me and my first world problems. And don't even get me started on the OC or the CO! Lazy pricks probably out playing golf and drinking cognac!  :sarcasm:

I'd like you to post some actual statistics for me, from a credible source, that show the average worker lives pay cheque to pay cheque. Some do, which sucks.. But I am gonna go out on a limb and agree with Mr Sallow's previous comment that most decide between groceries and TV subscriptions, not between doctors and rent type of thing.

What you say about Mitt Romney is true. It can also be said about Obama. Or Bush. Or 99.9% of politicians that make a bid for the White House. Its a very weak argument and hypocritical to have it applied only to the Republican candidate and not to the Democrat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> *What this comes down to is can Mitt Romney*, multi-millionare investment banker who inherited his fortune and status relate to the plight of the common man? He probable can, but does not come across well, when he makes statements like "Corporations are people too my friend" "Who much do you want to bet? $10,000?" "My wife has two Cadillacs" *do a better job than Obama*



TFTFY.

There's no need for all the extraneous dis\ qualifiers. What matters, is who is better all around to run the country.

Look at whether he'll be able to work with the Senate and Congress. Look at whether he'll be able to make things better, all around, for the US.

Who cares whether he's Daddy Warbucks or Joe Palooka.

If he can do the job, and make things work, he's already miles ahead of Obama.


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> wow really? : Are you trolling or are you serious?



Perhaps you should review your definition of what constitutes trolling.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> A guy "who pushes a wrench on the factory floor"? Mechanics make VERY good money, and most factory workers are heavily unionized.



Again. your stereotypical view that all factory workers have UAW like contracts, or even UAW type representation show how little you understand. 



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> By this logic, on military exercise when my Platoon Commander is getting orders, I am obviously working harder than him because I help dig his trench while he just does paper work? Guess he has no place leading me because he doesn't understand me and my first world problems. And don't even get me started on the OC or the CO! Lazy pricks probably out playing golf and drinking cognac!  :sarcasm:



Spare me the BS example. Not sure what logic you used to make the comparison.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> What you say about Mitt Romney is true. ...  Its a very weak argument and hypocritical to have it applied only to the Republican candidate and not to the Democrat.



The discussion was about Mitt Romney, not Barak Obama. So can the hypocritical comment, particularly when you yourself have shown tendencies to the same.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> I'd like you to post some actual statistics for me, from a credible source, that show the average worker lives pay cheque to pay cheque.



I'm not going to waste my time with your request. I've dealt with the same from you on other threads, and when I do provide such information, it's dismissed as crap by some left wing hack conspiracy source. 

I've been very reasonable in my comments, and I expect the same in return.


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY.
> 
> There's no need for all the extraneous dis\ qualifiers. What matters, is who is better all around to run the country.
> 
> ...



I agree with you right up to the last point.

I'm not convinced that Romney's private equity market experience will translate to running the US economy. And I definitely have considerable concerns on his foreign policy ability.


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm not going to waste my time with your request. I've dealt with the same from you on other threads, and when I do provide such information, it's dismissed as crap by some left wing hack conspiracy source.
> 
> I've been very reasonable in my comments, and I expect the same in return.



: Can now see the type of person you are. Not worth debating with. Please post for me a link to any of your posts where I dismissed evidence presented as a "left wing hack conspiracy source".


----------



## cupper (14 Apr 2012)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105348/post-1134555.html#msg1134555


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I agree with you right up to the last point.
> 
> I'm not convinced that Romney's private equity market experience will translate to running the US economy. And I definitely have considerable concerns on his foreign policy ability.



Either is the flip of a coin, you can't do worse than is already happening.

Your solution is to decide the lesser of the two evils. No one candidate is going to fulfill all your wishes.

Not unless you run, and vote, yourself.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Again. your stereotypical view that all factory workers have UAW like contracts, or even UAW type representation show how little you understand.
> Class A mechanics make between $60-$90\ hr. Whether working for themselves, or a dealership. He also said 'most'. Depends on your definition of most, I guess.
> 
> Spare me the BS example. Not sure what logic you used to make the comparison.
> ...


----------



## Sythen (14 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105348/post-1134555.html#msg1134555



You added nothing with your list of books and authors. You made no quotes from the books that added to the discussion, nor did you use any real evidence to back yourself up. Try again, please.


----------



## cupper (15 Apr 2012)

We've derailed the thread enough. Move on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> We've derailed the thread enough. Move on.



Once again, that's just your opinion. This thread has been in a constant state of derail since the start. So, in effect, it's not. Just the nature of the beast

You can defend yourself, or not. It's your decision on whether you proceed, or shut down conversation when cornered by stating "We've derailed the thread enough. Move on."

Like I said, it's been there since the start, as a Mod, I've got lots of experience with derails and trainwrecks. 

This ain't one. There's just so many aspects and opinions, it seems that way. Live with it.


----------



## Redeye (15 Apr 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> : Can now see the type of person you are. Not worth debating with.



Pot, this is kettle. Send colour state, over.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2012)

Okay, everyone to their corners.  Go find a political site if you want to prattle on - you're making too much work for the staff here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 May 2012)

US GOP political insider/strategist Karl Rove has a plausible plan for a Romney win, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/3-2-1-mitt-romneys-road-to-the-white-house/article2447847/


> 3-2-1: Mitt Romney’s road to the White House
> 
> SONIA VERMA
> 
> ...




I, personally, agree with James Carville: the race is close, closer than some (many? most?) in the media seem to think. Rove's 3:2:1 plan does plot a plausible route to the White House. Economic contractions in Europe and Asia will shake the US economy during he next few months - people are going to see their savings evaporate and will feel their pensions are under attack, all on Obama's watch. Romney can be a credible alternative. I still think that the election is Obama's to lose, he's an attractive candidate and a formidable campaigner, but Romney is not, I think going to be a pushover.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2012)

I don't see much of that "hopey" thingy with Obama playing out this time around......he's had 4 years, and not much, if anything, has done much to improve the economy down there....the partisanship battle is killing him....


----------



## ModlrMike (31 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I don't see much of that "hopey" thingy with Obama playing out this time around......he's had 4 years, and not much, if anything, has done much to improve the economy down there....the partisanship battle is killing him....



I agree. I wonder how many people now believe the honeymoon is over. Hope doesn't put a roof over your head of food in your belly. Voters want results, and swing/fickle voters more-so.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2012)

> Mr. Carville, for his part, says the race is too close to call.
> 
> “It’s a close race, and it’s going to be dependent on some things – the economy and the candidates’ faults. Sometimes you know ahead of time whose going to win or lose. This is not one of these times,” he said.



If you feel you are in front with momentum do you say to your troops that the outcome "is too close to call"?  Or is that something you say to your troops when they feel they are well behind and you need to convince them that they have a chance and will continue working?

If Carville is using the "too close to call" line then he probably thinks the Dems don't have a chance.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2012)

The administration continues to choose very ill considered lines of attack for their election campaign. The narrative about Bain Capital is about to get steamrollered by Soylendra and the other Crony capitalist "fails" of the Administration. Who is in charge of the election campaign anyway?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-about-we-compare-the-investment-records-of-bain-capital-and-the-obama-administration/?print=1



> *How About We Compare the Investment Records of Bain Capital and the Obama Administration?*
> 
> Posted By David H. Horwich On June 1, 2012 @ 12:05 am In Uncategorized | 23 Comments
> 
> ...



To recap; the Administration has provided subsidies totalling 1.1 trillion on "Green" energy, yet US green energy companies provide very limited employment and produce only a tiny fraction of the energy consumed in the US. (The initiative to produce ethanol from cellulose has actually provided no ethanol fuel at all...)

Lightsquared's management provided huge campaign contributions, and were thus allowed to continue operations and receiving government loans despite the heated opposition of the US Military, who pointed out Lightsquared's proposed technology interfered with GPS signals.

Even the auto industry bailout, (setting aside the violation of normal bankruptcy laws to disown some bondholders in favour of the UAW) has put the taxpayers in a position to lose something on the order of $50 billion should the government unload GM stock at the current price.

The $800 billion stimulus package was supposed to keep unemployment from rising past 8%. Unemployment today is over 10% (by U3), and the latest figures show unemployment rising again. Continuing "stimulation" of the economy by deficit spending of over $5 trillion dollars in the last 3 years has failed to move the economy from a very sluggish pace.

So by all means, bring on the economic debate.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2012)

Considering the importance of this election to the Democrats and the American left in general, is it any surprise that they are trumpeting a 119% turnout of voters? This sort of thing will probably mar the November elections as well (and only serves to strengthen the arguments for voter ID laws and a much more rigerous system of registering and vetting voters):

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/05/report-voter-turnout-119-percent-in-madison



> *REPORT: 119% VOTER TURNOUT IN MADISON, WI*
> 
> by DANA LOESCH  2 hours ago 276 POST A COMMENT
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jun 2012)

Must be all the out of state union members that were bused into Wisconsin.No one does voter fraud better than the democrats. Wait,thats why they are against voters showing ID at the polls. :


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jun 2012)

Perhaps another argument for hold off exporting democracy until we can sort it out?


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Jun 2012)

Democracy is fine.Its just the damn socialists that yearn for a dictatorship thats the problem. If you look at the tactics used by the left in the US you will see much the same tactics used by the communists to gain and keep power. The use of union thugs to intimidate citizens and corporations. The use of the media to try to shape their message and attack those they view as enemies.I think in the US at least if we banned unions from getting involved in the political process we might begin to clean things up.The unions exist to represent their members with employers. I also dont favor unionizing government workers.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2012)

Defections by high ranking Democrats and public statements by other Democrat leaders which are (or can be interpreted as being) against the policies of the Obama administration cannot be doing the election campaign any good. One figure who was not mentioned in the article was former President Bill Clinton, who's remarks (including one at a fundraiser where he reportedly said "“Remember me? I’m the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”) can be seen as sticking a fork into the current President. Another metric which makes this a very interesting election:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152442/Former-Democratic-congressman-Artur-Davis-registers-Republican-election.html#ixzz1wSEHlNTM



> *Top Democrat known as ‘the second black President’ defects to Republicans*
> By Toby Harnden
> PUBLISHED: 00:12 GMT, 31 May 2012 | UPDATED: 00:13 GMT, 31 May 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2012)

You can just feel the love from former President Clinton. I suspect (as do many people in the Blogosphere) that President Clinton is taking his revenge on the Obama team and the Democrat party for bypassing Hillary as the Presidential candidate in the 2008 election, but canny politician that he is, his remarks are subtle enough to stick a fork in President Obama without providing an opening for Governor Romney's team. I wonder if there is some medium profile Democrat right now who will be getting the support and blessing of the Clinton's for 2016 (since I think Hillary might not be a contender by then):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/07/bill_clinton_median_income_now_lower_than_when_i_left_office.html



> *Bill Clinton: Median Income Now Lower Than When I Left Office*
> 
> RELATED VIDEOS | expand
> "Those rates -- the problem with that and why I think they should be extended for the bottom 98% is that median income, after inflation, is lower than it was the day I left office," former President Bill Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Thursday afternoon.
> ...


----------



## Sythen (8 Jun 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> You also mention being constrained by congress, but who was that MSNBC personality who said Obama should bypass the "bought congress" and essentially take power to push things through he wanted? If I were home, I'd post links to it from youtube, but instead of being brushed off as an extremeist, this guy was applauded and held up as a hero for saying these things. In the next term, if congress puts a stop to some of the Obama initiatives, who is to say he won't try?



More to add to my previous comment above, this article on CNN by Dean Obeidallah:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/08/opinion/obeidallah-liberals-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

From the article:



> What's clear is that the liberals speaking out don't want a president, they want a king. Albeit a liberal king -- but still a king, who would be unrestrained by Congress as well as the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution.
> 
> These disenchanted liberals apparently wanted Obama -- upon taking office -- to have instantly transformed every campaign promise into law by the simple wave of a pen. Or maybe they would have preferred Obama to have walked out onto a White House balcony where, in a scene reminiscent of the musical "Evita," he would be greeted by adoring throngs waiting below, and on the spot, declare that all his ideas were now the law of the land.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2012)

Counterpoint to the "Life of Julia" ad from the Obama campaign. Emily O’Neill provides a very refreshing POV to Julia the moocher. Her YouTube presentation is here



> *You’ve Met Julia the Moocher, Now Meet Emily*
> 
> June 11, 2012 by Dan Mitchell
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2012)

Friday morning funnies.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/its-an-obama-world-23-of-small-business-owners-went-a-year-without-pay/obama-restraining-order/


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2012)

Nice to see the loyal Party support for the President this early in the race....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/233325-manchin-rahall-tomblin-to-skip-democratic-national-convention



> *Sen. Manchin to skip Democratic convention*
> By Justin Sink - 06/18/12 05:30 PM ET
> 
> Three prominent West Virginia Democrats said Monday that they would skip the party's national convention in Charlotte, N.C., this September over concerns that links to the party could hurt their re-election chances.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2012)

The Democrat party reaches new lows. Once this meme gets out in the blogosphere, you wil see a very angry reaction from taxpayers and the non political who didn't realize where their tax money was going:

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/06/who-pays-these-hecklers-sorry-i-asked/



> *Who pays these hecklers? (Sorry I asked….)*
> JUNE 20, 2012 11:12 AM - AUTHOR: ERIC
> 
> Disgusted as I am by politics (these days I’m more inclined to write about the birds), you would think I would be more prepared for the type of sleaze I stumbled onto this morning. I guess there is still something in me that causes my usual disgust to rise to the level of genuine outrage. There is something about seeing taxpayer revenue being used for the most blatantly partisan political purposes that makes my blood boil.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (24 Jun 2012)

Interesting piece from the Guardian's opinion pages about the aptly named Mendacious Mitt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief

Shared with the usual fair use provisions, source article is loaded with links that support the statements.

Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief

Spin is normal in politics, but Romney is pioneering a cynical strategy of reducing fact and truth to pure partisanship

    Share 1247
    Email

    Michael Cohen
        Michael Cohen
        guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 18.31 BST
        Comments (…)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
When challenged about an untruthful statement, Romney's tactic is to deny he said it – lie trumping lie, writes Michael Cohen. Photograph: YouTube/BarackObamadotcom

Four years ago, when I was writing about the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote with dismay and surprise at the spate of falsehoods coming out of John McCain's campaign for president. McCain had falsely accused his opponent Barack Obama of supporting "comprehensive sex education" for children, and of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class, while his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, took credit for opposing the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", which she had actually supported.

At the time, such false and misleading claims from a presidential candidate seemed shocking: they crossed an unstated line in American politics – going from the usual garden-variety campaign exaggeration to wilful lying.

Ah, those were the days … after watching Mitt Romney run for president the past few months, he makes John McCain look like George Washington (of "I Can't Tell A Lie" fame).

Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.

Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.

My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:

    "Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."

Nothing about this sentence is true.

President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).

But foreign policy is a relatively light area of mistruth for the GOP standard-bearer. The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).

Romney also likes to argue that the stimulus didn't help private-sector job growth, but rather helped preserve government jobs. In fact, the Obama years have been witness to massive cuts in government employment. While the private sector is not necessarily "doing fine", as Obama said in a recent White House press conference, it's doing a heck of a lot better than the public sector.

And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.

Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased.

Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".

Also of Obamacare, Romney has said that it will lead to the government taking over 50% of the economy (not true) – its true cost can't be computed (that's why we have a Congressional Budget Office in the United States); that it will create to "a massive European-style entitlement" (many liberals wish this were true, but alas, it is not); and that it will lead to a government-run healthcare system (a lie so pervasive that it's practically become shorthand for Republicans – yet it too, like the infamous made-up death panels of the health care debate, is simply not accurate).

The lying from the Romney campaign is so out-of-control that Steve Benen, a blogger and producer for the Rachel Maddow show compiles a weekly list of "Mitt's Mendacity" that is chockfull of new untruths. Benen appears unlikely to run out of material any time soon, particularly since Romney persists in repeating the same lies over and over, even after they've been debunked.

This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.

What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie.

Now, it's certainly true that on the campaign trail, facts can be stretched in many different directions – and both parties, including President Obama, frequently make arguments that are misleading, lacking in context or simply false. But it is virtually unheard of for a politician to lie with such reckless abandon and appear completely unconcerned about getting caught.

Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.

Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.

It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.

Pointing out that Romney is consistently not telling the truth thus risks simply falling into the category of the usual "he-said, she-said" of American politics. For cynical reporters, the behavior is inevitably seen to be the way the political game is now played. Rather than being viewed and ultimately exposed as examples of a pervasive pattern of falsehoods, Romney's statements embed themselves in the normalized political narrative – along with aggrieved Democrats complaining that Romney isn't telling the truth. Meanwhile, the lie sticks in the minds of voters.

As MSNBC's Steve Benen told me:

    "Romney gets away with it because he and his team realize contemporary political journalism isn't equipped to deal with a candidate who lies this much, about so many topics, so often."

Romney is charting new and untraveled waters in American politics. In the process, he is cynically eroding the fragile sense of trust that exists between voters and politicians. It's almost enough to make one pine for the days when Sarah Palin lied about "the Bridge to Nowhere".

========================================================================================================

A USMC officer I work with who's a Republican said to me over lunch the other day "I can't believe that this clown is the best guy we can find to run..."


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jun 2012)

Some of those may be examples of lies.  Many are just disagreements over perception, or spin.

1. Obama's apologia are a matter of perception - some people see it that way, some don't.

2. The CBO's estimate of jobs saved is, I'm guessing, the same one that always gets trotted out.  But the one I'm thinking of is the one that begins by assuming that each $X saves one job; $Y was spent; therefore $Y/$X jobs were saved.

3. It is entirely true that much of the stimulus money devolved to lower levels of government was used to pad out payroll shortfalls to prevent layoffs, and that because the stimulus was a one-time shot and the revenue shortfalls persist, public sector layoffs have resulted.  The stimulus did preserve government jobs; it just didn't preserve them indefinitely.

4. Industrial markers were pretty much at bottom "when Obama took office".  It should be unsurprising that they have improved.  But the recovery has not been impressive.

5. If the Democrats didn't know PPACA was likely to retard economic recovery, they are collectively idiots.  That seems unlikely in the extreme; common sense indicates, yes, they "knew".

6. The Democrats and their supporters were also perfectly frank that PPACA was a stepping stone to single payer, which is undoubtedly a massive entitlement, and even without progressing that far PPACA is subject to a great deal of government regulation vested in the executive branch.

7. I think Benen is a tendentious little sh!t and I can not take anything he writes at face value, but that's just me.

8. I really can't conceive of anything in that list, even if all of the claims were true, that tops "I invented the internet".  Are progressives really that devoid of perspective?

Undoubtedly Romney spins and emits some outright lies.  I am not confident he is worse in this regard than Obama.

[Oh, and here is a chart of US federal deficits.  It is true that the deficit in 2011 is lower than in 2009, but not by a very impressive amount - and it sure seems to be a lot higher than 2008.]


----------



## GAP (24 Jun 2012)

Another Crushing Blow to Unions
Posted by Web Producer | June 21, 2012 
Article Link

Although the Supreme Court did not issue rulings today on the ObamaCare and Arizona immigration law cases, they did make a decision on a case that will have a profound effect on Big Labor. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU.

At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU.

This decision marks yet another huge loss for unions in this country, showing that they are no longer the invincible political powerhouses that they used to be. Not only did this ruling limit their ability to unilaterally use union dues to fund political campaigns, but it also reflected that Big Labor in this country can no longer rely on Democrats to always support them; two of the most liberal justices on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Obama appointee, sided with the majority against the SEIU.

With this decision coming off the heels of the massive union loss in the Wisconsin recall election, it poses this question: Is the era of Big Labor coming to an end?
end


----------



## Redeye (25 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some of those may be examples of lies.  Many are just disagreements over perception, or spin.
> 
> 1. Obama's apologia are a matter of perception - some people see it that way, some don't.



No they aren't. They are a statement. Obama traveled around the world making apologies for America. To check the veracity of the statement is simple. Did President Obama travel around the world making apologies for America? No. Therefore, this statement is a lie. Perception doesn't matter. Politifact has a much more in depth explanation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 2. The CBO's estimate of jobs saved is, I'm guessing, the same one that always gets trotted out.  But the one I'm thinking of is the one that begins by assuming that each $X saves one job; $Y was spent; therefore $Y/$X jobs were saved.



This point's rather debatable, I agree. However, it's pretty easy for President Obama to point to the hundreds of thousands of auto sector jobs that Romney would have basically let disappear (because I don't think anyone believes for a second that anything would have come out of the auto sector going bankrupt). I like most people I think wasn't a fan of plowing tons of public money into an industry, but in the long run I think it'd be cheaper than the costs of dealing with a bunch of industry towns collapsing. That said, economists tend to agree that it was the stimulus effort good program, and the most common disagreement is that it wasn't enough or well enough targeted to invest in things that lay groundwork for future economic growth (like infrastructure, which America desperately needs to invest in).



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 3. It is entirely true that much of the stimulus money devolved to lower levels of government was used to pad out payroll shortfalls to prevent layoffs, and that because the stimulus was a one-time shot and the revenue shortfalls persist, public sector layoffs have resulted.  The stimulus did preserve government jobs; it just didn't preserve them indefinitely.



You can't really argue with statistics, public sector employment spiked briefly, but then dropped under Obama.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 4. Industrial markers were pretty much at bottom "when Obama took office".  It should be unsurprising that they have improved.  But the recovery has not been impressive.



No one is making a qualitative assessment of the recovery here. What the author is saying is that Romney's claims on perception of Obama's attitudes is not reflected in stock market performance, nor corporate profits. Again, that's an easily observable fact.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 5. If the Democrats didn't know PPACA was likely to retard economic recovery, they are collectively idiots.  That seems unlikely in the extreme; common sense indicates, yes, they "knew".



Why would they expect it to? PPACA's aim is to stabilize health insurance costs and improve access to healthcare for Americans. The surging cost of health benefits has been a thorn in the side of American employers for a long time. Part of the reason the auto sector boomed in Ontario in the late 1990s and early 2000s was the exchange rate, but another large part was stable cost of benefits meant it was cheaper to employ people here. PPACA is designed to achieve a similar purpose. Romney's argument hinges on a complex series of assertions which don't hold up - but it's part of instilling a narrative in the head of the average American voter (who isn't going to go any deeper than talking points), and even then it's just an assertion.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 6. The Democrats and their supporters were also perfectly frank that PPACA was a stepping stone to single payer, which is undoubtedly a massive entitlement, and even without progressing that far PPACA is subject to a great deal of government regulation vested in the executive branch.



They were? When? While I don't doubt that many of them are hopeful that that will be the eventual outcome, I can't recall any of them saying so, in fact, they've always distanced themselves from the idea.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 7. I think Benen is a tendentious little sh!t and I can not take anything he writes at face value, but that's just me.



Unless you can actually prove anything he's said to be false, we'll just leave this alone.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 8. I really can't conceive of anything in that list, even if all of the claims were true, that tops "I invented the internet".  Are progressives really that devoid of perspective?



This one made me laugh, you know, because Gore never said he did. He did make a rather awkwardly worked comment about his role in promoting the development of it as we know it today (detailed here http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) but never did he claim to invent it.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Undoubtedly Romney spins and emits some outright lies.  I am not confident he is worse in this regard than Obama.



Interestingly enough, I don't think any of the well-established fact checking organizations out there would agree with you. I'm cynical enough to accept that all politicians lie, but the degree to which Romney does is ahead of the curve. And the more desperate and pathetic the GOP's attacks on President Obama become, the more I start to think they realize it too.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> [Oh, and here is a chart of US federal deficits.  It is true that the deficit in 2011 is lower than in 2009, but not by a very impressive amount - and it sure seems to be a lot higher than 2008.]


[/quote]

So, to recap, Romney's statement that Obama has doubled the deficit is not true. Which makes it what, again? And the 2009 federal budget, that got underway on President Bush's watch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget


----------



## Kalatzi (25 Jun 2012)

Lockheed Martin eyes layoffs this fall

link here http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77779.html
Reproduced under the fair use provision of the copyright act

Lockheed Martin is contemplating a pre-election move that could shake up the political landscape.

Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the “vast majority” of its 123,000 workers that they’re at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company’s vice president of legislative affairs.
Continue Reading 



Text Size
 -
 +
 reset


Latest on POLITICO
 Bob Dole: 'I'm not a Gingrich fan'
 Pa. pol: Voter ID helps GOP win state
 The return of the drachma
 Cato, Kochs settle ownership fight
 Limbaugh: Scalia is 'right on money'
 AMC: Save the (other) White House


Allen on Lockheed layoffs



Walters’s comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that’s trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013.

Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, “we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base,” Walters told POLITICO.

The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months’ notice to workers facing layoffs. “We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect,” he said.

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor and a bellwether of the industry, won’t be alone. Other defense contractors have also signaled they’re considering sending out notices right before Election Day.

The layoffs, of course, won’t all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors’ bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts — along with the requirement of 60-day notice — provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November.

Only a fraction of Lockheed’s workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out.

“We’ve wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like,” Walters said. “But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB.”

Under sequestration, nearly every account in the Pentagon budget would be trimmed, resulting in a 10 percent reduction in the Defense Department, which has seen its funding roughly double since 2001, due largely to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that because the cuts would be leveled across the board, Pentagon planners would not be able to prioritize what should be eliminated first.

“I am very concerned,” he told POLITICO. “I feel an urgency because I think it’s happening right now. People are already being laid off, and jobs are already being frozen or they’re not hiring, and I’m frustrated.”

McKeon is pushing a bill that would pay for the first year of sequestration through a 10-year, 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce, achieved through attrition.

Asked about McKeon’s plan, Walters said Lockheed does not want to be seen as endorsing any particular proposal. “We would prefer — without endorsing one alternative or another — we certainly would like the uncertainty removed going forward,” he said.

And even if sequestration were delayed by a year, Walters added, “It would still be an environment where we wouldn’t be confident making investment and hiring decisions.”

What a class act. I hope their blackmail attempt blows up in their faces on election day, with a landslide for Obama. The CEO at Lockheed would probably make a pretty good Mafia Capo.  Its a sad comment on the state of teh US economy that they can even  consider this


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2012)

1. I reiterate - a matter of perception.  Some people recollect other presidents - Reagan was a common favourite for comparison - who were not in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, especially hereditary and unelected ones.  That you don't see that as apologetic behaviour does not mean others see it the same way.

2. There is no estimate of auto sector jobs which would have been lost.  Bankruptcy proceedings <> disbandment.  Restructure <> disappearance.  An equally valid hypothesis is that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have allowed the industry to shake out its deadweight and become more productive.

3. "You can't really argue with statistics, public sector employment spiked briefly, but then dropped under Obama."  If you want to stick to statistics - exact numbers, no spin - then here are the statements of fact.  The stimulus, while the stimulus was in effect, preserved government jobs.  The fact government jobs were lost after the stimulus program ceased is not relevant to the claim/criticism that the stimulus preserved government jobs.

4. The easily observable facts of economic indicators do not provide any context as to whether they are because of administration policy, or in spite of administration policy.  I suppose you have no curiosity in that context.

5.  If one of PPACA's aims was to improve access to healthcare, then by definition it must be an expansion of spending (for those who have no means), which - in a time of recession - is generally held to be a drag on economic recovery [in the long term, after the CBO gaming fantasy ends].

6.  Try searching for articles on variations of "PPACA stepping stone single payer".  I recall plenty of discussion.  Your recollection of none means, I assume, you did not encounter any.

7.  My opinion of Benen is only germane to objective and rational people who like to take the spin masters (eg. Limbaugh) with a grain of salt.

8. So when Obama claims Republicans have no "plans" (plan to a politician really being just concept of operations outline) to address the fiscal situation, entitlement reform, or health care reform in particular, he is a paragon of truth despite actual legislation that has been proposed or even passed in the House?

To recap, if we're going to be sloppy and blame budgets on presidents, here is the way FY 2009 went down:
- Bush submitted his budget proposal during the expected time window in early 2009
- Bush indicated he would veto the bill if it increased the deficit beyond his own request
- Congress (both houses Democrat-controlled) declined to pass any appropriations except those for Defence, HS, and VA until after the election
- Congress passed the remaining appropriations after Obama took office
- Obama signed the appropriations bill

So who's "watch" is that again, and which party controlled the actual legislation (ie. everything after the request)?


----------



## Redeye (26 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 1. I reiterate - a matter of perception.  Some people recollect other presidents - Reagan was a common favourite for comparison - who were not in the habit of bowing to foreign leaders, especially hereditary and unelected ones.  That you don't see that as apologetic behaviour does not mean others see it the same way.
> 
> 2. There is no estimate of auto sector jobs which would have been lost.  Bankruptcy proceedings <> disbandment.  Restructure <> disappearance.  An equally valid hypothesis is that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have allowed the industry to shake out its deadweight and become more productive.
> 
> ...



I don't really care that much about how President Obama decided to greet foreign leaders, and I don't think too many people do either, but that's just my perception. I've noted that the far right's tried really hard to make some political hay out of this, but I've seen nothing to suggest that it's been successful.

As far as the auto sector, I agree it's a huge issue. But I don't see any what that bankruptcy procedures would have come up with a much better outcome, given the nature and structure of the industry. I've not seen any good works that model how a bankruptcy could have worked, but admittedly, I've not really looked that hard for any, since it doesn't really matter, it's done now.

So the stimulus briefly preserved public sector jobs, before they shrank dramatically, so ultimately, the long term effect was not to preserve public sector jobs. I suppose that can be chalked up to perception too.

Point 4, well, market/economic statistics are measures of actual performance (things like corporate profits) and perception for future prospects. It's a little ridiculous the way people will claim business is booming "in spite of" an administration, without any real evidence.

Point 5 - that's easily countered. Canada has better access to health care (in terms of proportion of population covered) as do all other industrialized nations as they all have a form of universal healthcare. Yet all of them manage to spend less public money on their systems than the United States does. So no, there need not be an expansion of spending, just changes to how the money is spent.

Point 6 - Done. Lots of comments from pundits, lots of discussion on the prospects for it. I don't see anything from the federal Democrats in terms of policy statements, talking points, etc, that suggests that that is the aim. There was indeed plenty of discussion, but I also remember President Obama and others stating that they weren't interested in going that route.

Point 7 - Fair enough, I haven't read enough of his stuff to really criticize him, what I skimmed didn't look problematic.

As far as point 8 goes, their statements are based on looking at the proposals by the GOP. Most of the commentary is over analysis that GOP plans will actually increase the deficit and provide massive breaks to the wealthiest Americans, while gutting programs like Medicare. That, obviously, isn't acceptable to Democrats. The deadlock gripping American politics is over a fundamental difference in viewing the way out of the mess they're in - and I have to empathize with those who feel that money now has too much say in that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2012)

"because" vs "in spite of" is simply correlation <> causation.

Better access does not necessarily equal better outcomes.  The US spends a lot more on healthcare, and those who are able to do so get a lot more.  Whether that's "fair" or "just" is beside the point.  It is easy to spend less, and easy as a consequence to get less and have to settle for less.  I dispute that we have better access, because I can not get a regular family doctor.  There simply seem to be none taking new clients.

Presumably the Democrats also agree with gutting Medicare, since the budget scoring for PPACA - which the Democrats passed, and support, and like to claim will result in deficit reduction - assumes the Medicare "doc fix" will be discontinued.  I don't think it will improve access to Medicare when it is implemented.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "because" vs "in spite of" is simply correlation <> causation.
> 
> Better access does not necessarily equal better outcomes.  The US spends a lot more on healthcare, and those who are able to do so get a lot more.  Whether that's "fair" or "just" is beside the point.  It is easy to spend less, and easy as a consequence to get less and have to settle for less.  I dispute that we have better access, because I can not get a regular family doctor.  There simply seem to be none taking new clients.



That's the debate, whether the system there is "fair" or "just" - that's the whole crux of the debate and what's driven the Democrats' push to reform the system, with a fair bit of support. I look at the number of lies that have been spread about PPACA as a measure of just how afraid the GOP are that it will gain traction in the minds of voters.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Presumably the Democrats also agree with gutting Medicare, since the budget scoring for PPACA - which the Democrats passed, and support, and like to claim will result in deficit reduction - assumes the Medicare "doc fix" will be discontinued.  I don't think it will improve access to Medicare when it is implemented.



I'm not an expert on this - going to have to read more about it - but I do know a bit about some of the challenge with the way medicare is structured, no one claimed fixing the system was going to be easy.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jun 2012)

Why the fuck are you two battling so intently over an election in which neither of you will cast a ballot?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Why the fuck are you two battling so intently over an election in which neither of you will cast a ballot?




It is the latest ideological battle. We (the Euro-American "we") finally settled religious 'freedom' in the 18th and 19th centuries; we settled legislative democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries; and in the 20th century we settled, or at least settled the _framework_ for individual civil rights. Now we need to revisit a fundamental socio-economic issue: who gets to pick your (taxpaying) pocket and, more importantly, why? It's not quite the red headed step-child of the Whig-Tory battles of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it's a kissing cousin.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jun 2012)

I still don't get it.  It's the USA, not Canada.  It's their election, not ours.  

And the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The sophists will win because of their velvet tones, not because of their substance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I still don't get it.  It's the USA, not Canada.  It's their election, not ours.
> 
> And the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The sophists will win because of their velvet tones, not because of their substance.




_Au contraire_, TV, it matters to us, too, because this issue is being debated throughout the Euro-American world - from Greece through California to Ontario and back to Britain. We should know, from experience, that American _attitudes_ spread over the border: if Obama wins we will become a wee tiny bit more _liberal_, if Romney wins we will shift an equally wee tiny bit in the other direction.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jun 2012)

The face of things to come? What effect will these bankrupt cities have on the Obama campaign? Is this the tip of the iceberg, the future for other cities in California and beyond?

Californian city of Stockton faces bankruptcy

BBC News

The Californian city of Stockton is set to become the largest US city to declare bankruptcy.

Mayor Ann Johnston told the city council which endorsed the move it was "the most difficult and heart-wrenching decision" they had ever faced.

But she said it had to be done to begin the recovery process.

The river port city of 290,000 - which lies 90 miles (144km) east of San Francisco - suffered badly during the US housing market crash.

Filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection would allow the city to hold some of its creditors at bay while still paying for basic services like its police and fire department. 

More at link.


----------



## Redeye (27 Jun 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The face of things to come? What effect will these bankrupt cities have on the Obama campaign? Is this the tip of the iceberg, the future for other cities in California and beyond?
> 
> Californian city of Stockton faces bankruptcy
> 
> ...



Don't know how it'd really effect a Presidential campaign at all, to be honest. There's a myriad of problems that led to this. I worked fairly closely with a US Army officer who lives in Stockton who was telling us about what's been going on there, what a mess it's been between the housing crisis and other mismanagement in the city (and several others in California have the same problem), and California's fiscal challenges which are in large part attributable to the Republicans' Prop 13 which has had a significant impact on the ability to municipal governments to raise funds for services through property taxes as happens in most places. Sadly for California, Prop 13 is political kryptonite and there's no easy way to undo it.

It's funny to me that conservatives harp on California being broke - but California and most other "blue states" continue to subsidize "red states" - California being, as I recall, the largest contributor to such transfers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jun 2012)

>Why the frig are you two battling so intently over an election in which neither of you will cast a ballot?

I have played my life by the "rules" - avoided living on credit, saved for a rainy day - and it will all go up in a cloud of inflation if the US can't get its sh!t together and match spending to revenues.  (It may happen anyways because the European fascist/technocrat class is so hell-bent on protecting the currency union gambit they created to create a new supergovernment and governing supercaste).  

People who spent all their hard-earned money will also, in effect, spend some of mine.  Needless to say, that grates.


----------



## cupper (27 Jun 2012)

Fortune Magazine just sunk the Republican witch hunt / conspiracy theory over "Fast and Furious"

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/



> As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."
> 
> There's the rub.
> 
> ...



So... I really need to invest in ALCOA. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2012)

In other news - Majority favour Obama over Romney in dealing with Alien Invasion (the green kind from outer space, not the illegal kind)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-obama-alien-invasion-20120627,0,6297016.story



> A poll has found that President Obama has a commanding lead over Mitt Romney on an issue that neither candidate has addressed with even a single policy speech: how they would handle an alien invasion.
> 
> National Geographic Channel found that nearly 65% of Americans surveyed said they believed that Obama was better able to handle an alien onslaught than the Republican presidential candidate. And no, that's not the kind of alien from another country. It's the green kind, with fangs and tentacles and maybe some slime dripping from its beak-like jaws.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2012)

What about the Zombie Apocalypse? Huh?


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2012)

Well, if you consider that Romney exhibits traits of a zombie ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Fortune Magazine just sunk the Republican witch hunt / conspiracy theory over "Fast and Furious"
> 
> http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/



You really believe this will be the end of it?

Fortune magazine trumps the US populace?

I can't even imagine how many hundreds of people might even read, let alone pay attention to, that magazine.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You really believe this will be the end of it?
> 
> Fortune magazine trumps the US populace?
> 
> I can't even imagine how many hundreds of people might even read, let alone pay attention to, that magazine.



I think so. It demolishes the whole thing pretty soundly, and we only really need to worry about the people who actually care about the whole thing. Darrell Issa's already basically got his tail between his legs when he had to admit he had no evidence of any sort of cover-up or anything else.

One of the better commentators I've seen on the whole thing surmises that it was aimed to draw President Obama into a debate about guns before the election, and it appears to have failed. The whole story has been based upon a characteristic misrepresentation of the events, and actually serves as a scathing rebuke of gun laws in the US potentially.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2012)

I was waiting for the reasonable explanation of F&F, and this seems to be it.  Now all that remains is puzzlement over why the administration is disinclined to support the investigation to properly get to the bottom of it and determine who is responsible, and what disciplinary action (if any) needs to be applied.  If there's no foul, there's no need to stall.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I think so. It demolishes the whole thing pretty soundly, and we only really need to worry about the people who actually care about the whole thing. Darrell Issa's already basically got his tail between his legs when he had to admit he had no evidence of any sort of cover-up or anything else.
> 
> One of the better commentators I've seen on the whole thing surmises that it was aimed to draw President Obama into a debate about guns before the election, and it appears to have failed. The whole story has been based upon a characteristic misrepresentation of the events, and actually serves as a scathing rebuke of gun laws in the US potentially.



Or its a total whitewash.  ;D


----------



## Redeye (28 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I was waiting for the reasonable explanation of F&F, and this seems to be it.  Now all that remains is puzzlement over why the administration is disinclined to support the investigation to properly get to the bottom of it and determine who is responsible, and what disciplinary action (if any) needs to be applied.  If there's no foul, there's no need to stall.



Maybe they didn't have the whole story straight themselves, wanted to duck the quagmire? That's my best guess.


----------



## Haletown (28 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Darrell Issa's already basically got his tail between his legs when he had to admit he had no evidence of any sort of cover-up or anything else.



The whole point is that there is no "evidence" because Holder has refused to release the documents - or at least documents that aren't hundreds of pages of blacked out text.  The issue is refusal to provide the missing evidence.

Holder is in contempt of Congress.  Congress is supreme and Holder is refusing to cooperate with the Committee's investigation.


Your contention that Issa has his tail between his legs is fatuously incorrect and plumbs new depths of ludicrous.


----------



## Redeye (28 Jun 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The whole point is that there is no "evidence" because Holder has refused to release the documents - or at least documents that aren't hundreds of pages of blacked out text.  The issue is refusal to provide the missing evidence.
> 
> Holder is in contempt of Congress.  Congress is supreme and Holder is refusing to cooperate with the Committee's investigation.
> 
> ...



Certainly read that way when I read how he admitted that he had no evidence of any sort of cover up, and the investigation published by Fortune basically finishes the whole thing off.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2012)

Becca Watkins, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform spokeswoman, has issued the following statement:



> “Fortune’s story is a fantasy made up almost entirely from the accounts of individuals involved in the reckless tactics that took place in Operation Fast and Furious. It contains factual errors – including the false statement that Chairman Issa has called for Attorney General Holder’s resignation – and multiple distortions. It also hides critical information from readers – including a report in the Wall Street Journal – indicating that its primary sources may be facing criminal charges. Congressional staff gave Fortune Magazine numerous examples of false statements made by the story’s primary source and the magazine did not dispute this information. It did not, however, explain this material to its readers. The one point of agreement the Committee has with this story is its emphasis on the role Justice Department prosecutors, not just ATF agents, played in guns being transferred to drug cartels in Mexico. The allegations made in the story have been examined and rejected by congressional Republicans, Democrats, and the Justice Department.”


----------



## Haletown (28 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Certainly read that way when I read how he admitted that he had no evidence of any sort of cover up, and the investigation published by Fortune basically finishes the whole thing off.



Oh boy, Fortune magazine!  A story written by a Journalist!  Must be truebecause journalists are smart little critters and never make a mistake  or torque a story.

The idea he has no"evidence" and is just on a political fishing expedition is very, very thin gruel that appears to be a paper thin attempt to divert attention away from what is really happening.

The issue is contempt of Congress for Halder's  REFUSAL to cooperate in the investigation.  Issa is simply trying to find out what happened. Holder is trying to prevent him from finding out.  

The Executive Branch is not superior to the Congress. 

The Executive Branch answers TO the Congress.

Holder is acting like some royal Duke or whatever, acting like he is above the Constitution, above the Law, above the Congress.

That is why he will be the first AG in US history to be found in contempt of Congress.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2012)

A look at the "news" surrounding "Fast and Furious". The timing of the article is very interesting, coming out just prior to the contempt vote in Congress. What is even more interesting is the way the articel totally ignores not only the Attorny General's own admission, but also the sworn testimony of ATF agents:

http://bearsrant.blogspot.ca/2012/06/mainstream-medias-reporting-of-fast.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ABearsRant+%28A+Bear%27s+Rant%29



> *Fast & Furious - CNN's Soledad O'Brien Rides Again*
> 
> On the eve of an historic vote by a congressional committee that could find the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of congress, a Fortune Magazine article has been published that challenges the entire narrative of the what has come to be called Fast & Furious.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2012)

Looks like the health care debate will rear it's head again and take a major role in the election, now that SCOTUS has upheld the Affordable Care Act.

As for F & F, the documents in question were held back pending possible criminal prosecution, and as such are deemed to be privileged, and Issa knows this. But as part of the self proclaimed GOP effort to make Obama a 1 termer, he has made a witch hunt out of a conspiracy theory generated by right-wing crack-pots.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2012)

So what is the alternative?  Nothing to see, move on, no names, no pack drill?

Scooter Libby was convicted for false statements and obstruction despite not being the actual leaker of Plame's name.  What would be appropriate for the people who 
a) Conceived and authorized F&F,
b) Executed F&F, and
c) Misled or obstructed efforts to get to the bottom of F&F?

Sadusky: "Someone's got to go to prison, Ben".


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2012)

Most conservative web sites are up in arms about the decision, but two threads are emerging from that side of the debate:

1. By defining the individual mandate as a tax, another avenue of approach has been opened for opponents of the Democrat Party (The individual mandate will be one of the largest tax increases in peacetime history); and,

2. The Court has limited the reach of the Commerce Clause.


As an ironic counterpoint, since the House has already voted to repeal Obamacare in 2010, they can now finish the job by eliminating the individual mandate as part of a tax reform bill in January 2013...


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1. By defining the individual mandate as a tax, another avenue of approach has been opened for opponents of the Democrat Party (The individual mandate will be one of the largest tax increases in peacetime history); and,



But it leaves Romney open to the same argument, that he raised taxes as Governor, is spite of his claims otherwise.

NOt sure if this is good for Romney to attack ACA, which is conveniently modeled on his own Mass. laws.


----------



## Redeye (29 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> But it leaves Romney open to the same argument, that he raised taxes as Governor, is spite of his claims otherwise.
> 
> NOt sure if this is good for Romney to attack ACA, which is conveniently modeled on his own Mass. laws.



Agreed. I think Obama's only to happy to draw Romney into a fight over healthcare for that very reason. Their plans for Romney seem to focus on highlighting Romney as a liar and a flip-flopper, and there's no better issue to do so on than healthcare, I'd wager.

I was surprised by the decision, but I think that Roberts made the right decision from what I've read of it - just the summary - but the argument makes a fair bit of sense. Suffice it to say, this is a pretty massive win for the President and will play handily in the run up to the election. And while they're at it, voters can ask House Representatives why they're going to waste a bunch more time and taxpayers' money on another pointless "repeal" vote.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2012)

Obama won't have to draw Romney into anything; Romney is taking it head-on by vowing to work for repeal and replacement.


----------



## Redeye (29 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Obama won't have to draw Romney into anything; Romney is taking it head-on by vowing to work for repeal and replacement.



Replace it with what, exactly?! I don't recall seeing any coherent plan, and that still allows Obama to thrash him over the fact that it's modeled on his own plan.


----------



## cupper (29 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Replace it with what, exactly?! I don't recall seeing any coherent plan, and that still allows Obama to thrash him over the fact that it's modeled on his own plan.



Apparently they will replace it with Romneycare / Obamacare, without the mandate / tax / penalty / whatever the hell it is now.

Romney stated his replacement will ensure people with existing conditions cannot be rejected, young people will be able to will be allowed to stay on parent's insurance, limit the amount insurance companies can increase premiums, closing the medicare part D donut hole, and many of the other portions of Obamacare that are already in place. (In other words, pandering to keep votes of those that have already benefited).

But if he continues to call Obamacare constitutional but still bad policy, he is going to eventually have to explain how it was good policy when he brought it in, but bad now. How is it good at individual state level, but bad nationally. He will never be able to square that circle.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2012)

Before Romneycare existed, there were preconceptions about how well it would work.  After the fact, most people - including Romney - know more about the unforeseen consequences.  Obama can thrash all he wants - he's the one defending unpopular legislation, and the act has already been weakened in increments as various pieces have turned out to be piss-poor ideas.

Apparently the proposals on Romney's table include:
- increase competition across state lines
- devolve more authority to states
- widen the tax credits for buying health insurance
- encourage creation of subsidized high-risk pools
- change Medicaid to a block grant system
- other unspecified Medicaid/Medicare reform
- allow HSA funds to be used for insurance premiums

The merits of any particular point are debatable; the fact that concrete proposals exist and are aimed more at controlling costs than spreading coverage is not.

The Court decision was not a massive win for Obama and will not help Democrats.

Democrats assumed the act would be upheld on the basis of the Commerce Clause.  That would have been a "win".  Failing that, they looked to the Necessary and Proper Cause.  That would have been a "modest win".

That the act was upheld on neither clause, and had to be upheld on a contorted interpretation of taxation powers despite the many references explicit in the act to "penalty" and the repeated denials of its authors and supporters that it was a tax, makes it a "weak win".  Furthermore, the Medicaid expansion stick was whittled away.

The dissenting opinion is strong, and reveals just how weak a straw Roberts was forced to clutch (and refabricate) in order to throw the problem back at the legislators.

Although outright repeal of the act is still a long shot (Senate filibuster), gutting the act by removing the tax is not.  Longer term, the deficit/debt math kills the act - and a lot of other mandatory spending - anyways.

Democratic candidates are, and have been, running like scalded dogs to distance themselves from the act for months, and that has not changed.  Apparently they do not think it will help their chances of re-election.  Obama, too, would rather talk about other things.

We can all spin as much as we like, but the silence, excuses, and evasions of the acts authors and proponents tells the story quite plainly.


----------



## cupper (30 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> the fact that concrete proposals exist and are aimed more at controlling costs than spreading coverage is not.



The only concrete proposals coming from the Romney camp are a rehash of what is already in place under the ACA. As for anything you listed, none of it addresses rising costs within the system itself.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> and the act has already been weakened in increments as various pieces have turned out to be piss-poor ideas.



In what ways has the act been weakened since the legislation was passed, other than the courts limits on the federal funding provisions for medicaid?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Court decision was not a massive win for Obama and will not help Democrats./quote]
> 
> Don't know where you have been for the past two days, but all of the pundits on the major news outlets, conservative and liberal both are giving the Administration a BIG win. A complete elimination by the court was the only other result that could have come out of this, based on the dissenting opinions. That would have been a complete disaster for Obama and re-elction. You can't spin that any other way.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2012)

Actually, something like 60% of Americans dislike Obamacare, so the party that pledges to eliminate it will get a lot of support. Many TEA Party movement groups report a fresh flood of volunteers and monetary support due to the ruling. As well, now that the SCOTUS has defined the Individual Mandate as a tax, the GOP can run another parallel track to the economic performance platform: 

"You think things are bad today, wait until you and the economy are hit with the biggest tax increase in peacetime history; the Obamacare individual mandate"


----------



## Redeye (30 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Actually, something like 60% of Americans dislike Obamacare, so the party that pledges to eliminate it will get a lot of support. Many TEA Party movement groups report a fresh flood of volunteers and monetary support due to the ruling. As well, now that the SCOTUS has defined the Individual Mandate as a tax, the GOP can run another parallel track to the economic performance platform:
> 
> "You think things are bad today, wait until you and the economy are hit with the biggest tax increase in peacetime history; the Obamacare individual mandate"



The interesting bit is that people dislike "Obamacare" but they seem to like all the provisions in it, which shows how effective the agitprop machine against it is. When you frame the question as "Should people with pre-existing conditions have access to proper health insurance?" "Should kids be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26?" and things like that, I suspect that you'd get an interesting set of responses. I think there's some organization working on polls to that end, looking forward to seeing them.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The interesting bit is that people dislike "Obamacare" but they seem to like all the provisions in it, which shows how effective the agitprop machine against it is. When you frame the question as "Should people with pre-existing conditions have access to proper health insurance?" "Should kids be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26?" and things like that, I suspect that you'd get an interesting set of responses. I think there's some organization working on polls to that end, looking forward to seeing them.



I`m sure that with the same logic one could ask questions such as ``Do you like democracy``, ``should dictators who shoot chemicals at their own peoples by deposed``, and ``Do you think that a government that ignores the orders of the UN should be deposed`` and come to the conclusion that most Americans support or supported the Iraq War.

As for Romney, `Romneycare` was a good solution for Massachusetts, but as he has stated, is not a good solution for the US as a whole.  Obama`s political mistake was forcing it on states that clearly didn`t want any part of it instead of making it optional.  If the fine people of the state of Georgia don't want it, than that's their choice.  Obama`s hubris that he knows best is what will hurt him on this one.


----------



## mikewalker28 (30 Jun 2012)

It's funny how, no matter who i vote for i still have to pay tax. 

Some things never change !


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2012)

I consider the intention of DHHS to not enforce the CLASS provisions to be a weakening of the act, notwithstanding that the repeal bill seems not to have made it past the Senate.

Appeal to opinion of pundits has not much weight.  I read the expectations and predictions of the various legal academics and analysts myself.  The act's proponents were sure of themselves, had big expectations, and fell well short; the acts opponents were cautiously optimistic but rarely willing to forecast above 50/50, and then only for removal of the mandate.  Roberts's rewrite gave opponents an easier path to removal of the penalty, and the decision affirmed the unconstitutionality of the grounds on which the proponents sought to have the act upheld.  The opponents got something - indeed, something of substance - rather than nothing.

For purposes of judging the relative degrees of success, complete elimination was not the only other result.  Do not confuse what we now know about the dissenting opinion after the fact of its issue with what people believed to be likely before June 28.  Avoidance of disaster <> "big win", when the minimum expectation was a "bigger win" (ie. upheld on Commerce clause).

I doubt Republicans will find it difficult to campaign on two issues - health care and the economy - at the same time.  Four months is a lot of time to explain to people just how much their taxes are going up and just how high unemployment is.

If you think independents will necessarily avoid rather than join the TP, I think you have bought too much into the "TP extremist" caricature.


----------



## Redeye (30 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I doubt Republicans will find it difficult to campaign on two issues - health care and the economy - at the same time.  Four months is a lot of time to explain to people just how much their taxes are going up and just how high unemployment is.



If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.



Provide statistics that show that the Republicans ruined the economy..... Obama has had 4 years to fix it, and aside from spending tons of money, increasing the debt more than any president in history, and blaming Bush hasn't really accomplished much.  I dont see much of an economic solution provided from the Dems that isn't comparable to what the Republicans are offering.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.




They We (because we are just as bad) will _spin_ the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will *choose* to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from *anything*


There, fixed that for you.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper,* a Mormon*, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.


WTF does that have to do with anything?  I mean, other than showing your colours as an anti-theistic bigot?  Mormons have strong family values, believe in personal responsibility for actions and suffer from bigotry.  You know, people think that their beliefs are weird, therefore, they are weird, and that they all have fifteen wives.

As for him being a liar and flip-flopper, I think that just means that he's met the basic minimum requirements to be a politician.


----------



## Redeye (30 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They We (because we are just as bad) will _spin_ the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will *choose* to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.


http://forums.army.ca/forums/Themes/Milnet/images/bbc/divider.gif

That's actually what I was getting at. Yet, looking at a lot of things - government budget balances, economic indicators like stock indices, corporate profits, etc, all those can be fairly easily used to make that argument. When you're dealing with the masses who don't go beyond the face value, it can work.


----------



## Redeye (30 Jun 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There, fixed that for you.WTF does that have to do with anything?  I mean, other than showing your colours as an anti-theistic bigot?  Mormons have strong family values, believe in personal responsibility for actions and suffer from bigotry.  You know, people think that their beliefs are weird, therefore, they are weird, and that they all have fifteen wives



It has nothing to do with me, but it may well become a campaign issue, if it goes that "low". It actually came up during the primaries, several times, though it evidently didn't impact there. I couldn't care less what religion he is - but guess what... a considerable chunk of American voters do, in particular the conservative, evangelical Christian set. From a cold, calculating perspective, the Democrats would be happy to air this because it might make some of those people stay home rather than vote, and not voting for Romney is as good as voting for Obama.

Go ahead and google something like Romney Mormon Election Impact - see how much you get - lots of articles from a variety of perspectives.

Incidentally, Mormonism was pretty big on bigotry themselves, until they magically had a "revelation" that made them change their tune on African-Americans. But I'm not interested in getting into that, it's beside the point.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2012)

In the end, then, there isn't really anything to distinguish the candidates:
- Mormon vs disciple of Jeremiah Wright
- liars
- flip-floppers
- poor economic managers
- proponents of poor health care bills

I guess it will come down to whether Americans like their new taxes and believe Democrats are the best people to deal with the remaining economic issues that have not been vanquished after four years of tireless effort.


----------



## Haletown (30 Jun 2012)

From the "What could possibly go wrong" file . . . 

 "although the legislation Mr. Obama signed in 2010 spells out most aspects of the law, federal officials can materially change it depending on how they write regulations "

So a country that is massively in debt, running staggeringly huge deficits believes it is a good idea to let civil servants write regulations for a new entitlement program.

Makes perfect sense on Planet Crazy.  

Not so much in the real world.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2012)

Its ok, they can just tax the rich to pay for it! That's the solution to everything.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its ok, they can just tax the rich to pay for it! That's the solution to everything.



Hey, that's the NDP platform! No stealing....


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> They We (because we are just as bad) will _spin_ the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will *choose* to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.




And, regarding the 2012 US election, see this story in the _Globe and Mail_ which is headlined: Democrats brace for the worst with Romney poised to out fundraise Obama.

According to the _Globe_ journalist the Romney campaign will, yet again, as it did in May, raise more money than Obama's team.

Apparently Obama is pleading with supporters give more and more, saying: "_“I’m asking you to meet or exceed what you did in 2008 ... because we’re going to have to deal with these Super PACs in a serious way. And if we don’t, frankly I think the political [scene] is going to be changed permanently…The special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”_" And he's saying, "_“I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far ... I’m not just talking about the Super PACs and anonymous outside groups – I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.”_"

Monet talks in politics - especially in a nation that is 'informed' by television.


----------



## cupper (2 Jul 2012)

Too bad the GOP and the Romney Campaign can't coordinate their message.

*Romney campaign, at odds with GOP, says mandate is not a tax *

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-adviser-breaks-from-gop-message-says-mandate-is-not-a-tax/2012/07/02/gJQAF76JIW_blog.html?hpid=z3



> An adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney broke from the messaging of other Republicans Monday, arguing that the health-care mandate in the Affordable Care Act is not a tax.
> 
> “The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court, he agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, that very clearly said that the mandate was not a tax,” Eric Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC. “The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Jul 2012)

Interesting poll results taken after the Court ruling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-political-fallout-from-health-care-reform--in-three-charts/2012/07/02/gJQALKBhIW_blog.html


----------



## cupper (2 Jul 2012)

Even Rupert Murdoch is critical about Romney;s campaign and choice of advisors.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/rupert-murdoch-mitt-romney-twitter-tom-cruise-/1#.T_JTqfX0_xh


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2012)

Interview on YouTube:

*WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ixRRuzmxzTg

Smart people would run with that in an election year.....


----------



## exabedtech (4 Jul 2012)

Every argument to support the democrats in here in based on how evil Romney is.
Every argument to support the republicans in here is based on how horrible a job Obama has done.

This is what US politics is reduced to.  God help us all.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Every argument to support the democrats in here in based on how evil Romney is.
> Every argument to support the republicans in here is based on how horrible a job Obama has done.



And which of those isn't just fear mongering? The Dems are screwed if their whole strategy is "The right is evil!!!".


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2012)

"Every argument to support the liberals in here in based on how evil Harper is.
Every argument to support the conservatives in here is based on how horrible a job Martin has done."

I don't think our emperor's clothes are much better.


----------



## captloadie (4 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interview on YouTube:
> 
> *WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less*
> 
> ...



Although, would it not be fair to say that 75% of the American population makes less than $120K per year, and also requires at least 75% of the medical care?
In that case, it is hard to say that it is taxing the rich, or that the it isn't a user pay system.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Although, would it not be fair to say that 75% of the American population makes less than $120K per year, and also requires at least 75% of the medical care?
> In that case, it is hard to say that it is taxing the rich, or that the it isn't a user pay system.



That's the whole thing with headlines. When you give them a few seconds of critical thought you realize that what the're saying isn't as "shocking" as they'd like you to think.


----------



## Sythen (4 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's the whole thing with headlines. When you give them a few seconds of critical thought you realize that what the're saying isn't as "shocking" as they'd like you to think.



Wonder how many of those 75% are actually paying taxes? In reality the cost will fall on the already badly hit middle class, who would have already (usually) had health insurance. Now they will be paying a lot more for much less coverage.

That's the whole thing about critical thought.. It usually trumps bias.


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Wonder how many of those 75% are actually paying taxes? In reality the cost will fall on the already badly hit middle class, who would have already (usually) had health insurance. Now they will be paying a lot more for much less coverage.
> 
> That's the whole thing about critical thought.. It usually trumps bias.



Paying more for a lot less coverage? In what way will they be paying for a lot less coverage?! They'll have the same coverage, and there's actually, once it all takes effect, a chance (albeit small, since that's not usually how things work) they'll be paying less, because of some provisions. Like forcing insurance companies to spend money on care, with regulators being strict about that (see the recent article from Forbes). Never mind all the other provisions which will benefit those middle class folks. Making sure more people have access to regular care should cut use of the single most expensive form of care, ER visits, because people who've in the past waited too long should be able to access other forms of care for earlier intervention. That's the whole thing of this debate, it's being argued based on distortions and outright lies, and that is the real problem with the US political system.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jul 2012)

Possibly a hot topic in the US. The Obama administration support this.

I think the Obama and the Democrats' aim is US gun control. Fast and Furious appears to be an attempt to implicate the gun lobby/owners/manufactures/etc. 

If this comes about, Obama will back door it through regulations. The Obama led USA and like countries will comply but Russia/China will not. The NDP will bray for Canada to join in. Same old, same old problem of the UN.


http://www.examiner.com/article/un-reps-register-for-firearms-conference

Michael McGuire - July 1, 2012
   
*UN reps register for firearms conference*

Representatives for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty arrived in New York Sunday.

The conference is set for July 2-27.

The UN has operated a Register of Conventional Arms since 1991. In advance of the meeting, the UN announced the types of arms registered is being expanded.

"The Register covers seven categories of arms, which are deemed the most lethal ones," according to the UN. "Recently, countries decided that small arms could be added to the Register. Many countries now include small arms in their yearly reports."

"Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower," the UN said. "The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world."
Advertisement

While the UN insists it is not trying to outlaw firearms, the Arms Trade Treaty conference is under the auspices of the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs.

"Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groupsm," the UN said. "More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld."

The National Rifle Association issued a report in July 2011 challenging the treaty.

"We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community," the NRA said.

To follow developments at the conference from the UN's point of view, follow its Twitter account.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2012)

Paying more for less coverage is a certainty for most people, as small and medium sized business dump their employee health care plans. This is one of the consequences of how Obamacare is written; most companies will find it much cheaper to pay the fine/penalty/tax (depending on how politicians choose to word it) than to take on the additional expenses of maintaining current plans or insuring new employees.

Large corporations may or may not choose to dump their employee benefits as well; this WSJ article from March 2010 explains how Obamacare caused large corporations to restate their earnings; adding millions in liabilities:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html



> *ObamaCare Day One *
> Companies are already warning about higher health-care costs.
> 
> smaller Larger Democrats dragged themselves over the health-care finish line in part by repeating that voters would like the plan once it passed. Let's see what they think when they learn their insurance costs will jump right away.
> ...



Taxing insurers simply means that extra cost will be passed on to consumers as well. So yes, people will lose their existing benefits and will have to pay more, possibly much more for much less (since there will have to be rationing to contain the costs, as we all should know from our experience here in Canada).


----------



## Redeye (4 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Taxing insurers simply means that extra cost will be passed on to consumers as well. So yes, people will lose their existing benefits and will have to pay more, possibly much more for much less (since there will have to be rationing to contain the costs, as we all should know from our experience here in Canada).



Economics 101: Rationing exists already. It does in any market for a scarce resource. It's common to suggest that it'll somehow be new. You can find plenty of stories from the States of people who've been the victims of insurers rationing life-saving care when it will take away from their sole (and entirely rational) objective of maximizing profit.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2012)

So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).



There is a difference between rationing and eliminating coverage / raising premiums / increasing costs.

And lets agree that costs and premiums are two different things.


----------



## Redeye (5 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).



Funny enough, I didn't say any of that. At all. It will make sure coverage is universal, and should bring costs down in the long run. I said rationing exists no matter what the structure when scarce resources are involved. I made no statement beyond that.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

Also, rationing is more likely to exist in the current system, as the insurance companies are quick to have a non medically trained paper pusher make an assessment based on a written protocol rather than any evidence provided by the patient's doctor. Or they will use an outside company to make an assessment using a professional who is being paid by the company, so is beholden to the insurance company and not the patient.

I've had both situations occur over simple prescriptions, physiotherapy for lower back pain, and other issues.

So if anyone makes the argument that this is a government takeover of health care and they don't want anyone coming between them and their doctor hasn't got a clue as to what is going on with the private insurance industry, and needs to rethink their comment.

It's the multiple levels of administrative processing that creates the greatest part of the huge money sucking machine that everyone is bitching about.

Unfortunately the Dems didn't have the balls to go universal single payer health care, and the GOP weren't in a mood to look at the reality of what they were doing when they decided to take an obstructionist tact. So what we got was the best that they could come up with. And as with any go big or go home institutional change it is going to take several years for the real results to roll in. So all these doom and gloom scenarios, along with the a roses and sunshine projections are simply political BS.

I'm looking at this as a first step to addressing the problems with the whole US health cares system. It's a framework to build on and simply that. There were big problems with how the private insurance industry managed care for their customers. The uninsured act as a drain on the system for those that are insured (the free rider problem). Young people going without until they really needed it. All of thise issues are addressed under the ACA.

Is it perfect, no. Are there ways it can be improved, yes. Will we be better off than what the current system provides. Certainly. BUt it's going to take 18 more months for the full act to take effect, and at least a couple of years beyond to get enough feed back to determine what works and what needs improvement.

Oh, and Mitt seems to have had a change of heart again, and now sees that this is a tax, not a penalty.   :


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2012)

Obviously you have not looked at the actuality of people losing their work coverage and being forced into much lesser coverage in the "pools", which is the effect of Obamacare. The escalation in costs to individuals has also been well documented, so if you still wish to constest the point then you are not arguing based on the evidence.

As for "having the balls" to go to a single payer system, all you need to do is look at our system, or the UK's NHS and you will realize that any politician who tried to impliment an even more dysfunctional system than they currently have would be strung up from lamp posts. If anything, Canadians would benefit from leaving a single payer system...


----------



## dogger1936 (5 Jul 2012)

I've been awaiting surgery on my leg since tour in 08. I would gladly pay someone right now to just fix it so I could lead a more productive life. Unfortunately I am stocked on a list with every person in the province requiring orthopedic surgery. I've been told another year at least to even see a orthopedic surgeon for a consult. Then I get placed on another list for surgery.

4 years waiting for surgery so I can walk normally again thus far. I figure it will be 6 long years before I actually get fixed.

Pro patria I guess.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2012)

We need, in my opinion:

1. A highly rationed, single payer system that protects everyone from the costs of _catastrophic_ illness;

2. A _competitive_ (maybe even including a _public_ competitor) health care insurance market that caters to both groups (most commonly employees) and individuals; and

3. Something akin to the US _Medicare_ system for those retirees who have paid into a programme ~ it should be commonly "topped up" with private insurance.

People should not be forced to buy insurance, but nor should doctors and hospitals be required to provide other than *real emergency* care.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Obviously you have not looked at the actuality of people losing their work coverage and being forced into much lesser coverage in the "pools", which is the effect of Obamacare.



Explain to me how one looks at evidence which has yet to occur? The pools have not been set up yet, and the mandate does not come into effect until 2014. Call me in 24 months, then I will give you what I have seen as evidence at that time. Until then, stop trying to say that people are or will lose coverage through their employer. No one has any idea what will happen this far out.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The escalation in costs to individuals has also been well documented, so if you still wish to constest the point then you are not arguing based on the evidence.



Costs to individuals for insurance are indeed going up. This is one failing under the ACA that didn't put the caps into effect until 2014. So the insurance companies jacked rates up to put them in a better position when the caps and limits come into force. As for cost for care, the evidence is mixed at best that costs are continuing to rise, or at least rise at slower rates than before the act was passed.

Like I said, be clear about what you mean by costs.

And by bringing more uninsured into the pool (the free riders) the lower the costs that have to be passed on to those who are insured to make up for services provided to uninsured that go unreimbursed.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for "having the balls" to go to a single payer system, all you need to do is look at our system, or the UK's NHS and you will realize that any politician who tried to impliment an even more dysfunctional system than they currently have would be strung up from lamp posts. If anything, Canadians would benefit from leaving a single payer system...



As long as you are willing to shell out upwards of $2000 per month for the privilege to have access services the health care industry provides, then pay a user fee or percentage of the cost for said services, all the power to you. Just remember that a serious / catastrophic illness or injury could leave you in dire financial circumstances. And that assumes you have insurance through an employer. Premiums are higher and coverage less if you go on your own, or lose coverage when you lose you job.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We need, in my opinion:
> 
> 1. A highly rationed, single payer system that protects everyone from the costs of _catastrophic_ illness;
> 
> ...



Aren't 1 & 2 mutually exclusive?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No; they are, more or less, what most European countries offer: a pretty well universal system that covers pretty much all serious medical problems - no one is denied care and no one has to go broke paying for _essential_ care. (It's what Tommy Douglas had in mind _circa_ 1960.) But the _public_ system is limited in _capacity_ - long waiting lists. You can jump the queue with you gold card by buying (or getting as a benefit of employment) private insurance which will cover more (not quite catastrophic, not quite bankruptcy inducing) ailments and which will buy faster access to treatments.

Counties like France have systems like this and, according to the OECD, their healthcare costs less than ours and produces better outcomes.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Aren't 1 & 2 mutually exclusive?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly makes better sense than what we have in either Canada or US. I've always thought a combination of the two systems would be the ideal solution. I enjoy the quick response of what I have in the US, but the fights with insurance is a hassle I could do without. The premiums are a pain, but when you consider it balances out with what I was paying in tax back in Canada it makes it somewhat more tolerable. But there is always the fear of going into financial dire straits if you become seriously sick.


----------



## Haletown (5 Jul 2012)

What could possibly go wrong . . .

""HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans."

The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations -- an effort well under way:  

"There's already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they're not even done yet,"



This boondoggle is going to make Solyndra  look like an efficient, effective and coherent business investment.






 www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/03/efforts-to-implement-obamacare-law-raise-concerns-massive-government-expansion/#ixzz1zmlhsQgK


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jul 2012)

Denial of claim <> rationing.  Rationing occurs when supply < demand.  In the case of health care, triage or a triage-like approach is generally how rationing is managed.

The difference between rationing and eliminating coverage (de-listing a service) is almost negligible, particularly if the rationing results in a delay/denial which forces the patient to seek service outside the system (ie. as if he had no coverage).

I am curious who the mythical "free riders" are.  People who can afford insurance are not necessarily "free riders".  If they pay for their medical needs now - and most providers are at least capable of figuring out whether a patient/consumer can pay, and making billing arrangements to suit if necessary - they are not "free riders".  If they choose to start buying health insurance later, presumably the health insurance companies are smart enough to charge premiums accordingly, which means the consumers are - again - not "free riders".  People on a low-cost (high deductible, catastrophic coverage) plan which will not pass federal muster to qualify for the tax credit are not "free riders".

The tax essentially targets people who can afford insurance (ie. can afford their health care already, and already pay for it) and gives them an option (ie. forego the tax credit) which in most cases still leaves them with a better net position than buying a sufficiently comprehensive plan to qualify for the credit.  So they continue paying for their health care, plus they pay a tax.  It is not about spreading "risk"; it is really just another way of transferring money from younger people to older ones.  Once you understand that, you are in a position to judge just how "fair" it is.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

> I am curious who the mythical "free riders" are.



The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance. Since the *publicly funded* hospitals are required to provide service beyond emergency care, knowing that they will not be reimbursed (even for profit hospitals that do provide care for such people knowing that they will not receive full reimbursement) will make up the loss by charging their insured patients higher rates.

Even if they do not have insurance, all hospitals are required to provide emergency treatment to stabilize you to the point where you can be moved to another facility that is willing to provide further treatment.



> Denial of claim <> rationing.  Rationing occurs when supply < demand.  In the case of health care, triage or a triage-like approach is generally how rationing is managed.



And don't for a minute believe that denial of claim is not rationing by another name. If the insurance company wants to keep payouts down to maximize return for investors, the first thing they will do is deny a claim with the thought being that a significant percentage of insured will not appeal. They force insured to go through a process of try this cheaper alternative first, even though your doctor knows that it won't be effective in your particular case, or is contra indicated for you specifically, but the more expensive alternative will work, and doesn't have the contra-indications.

The problem with your discussion is you are applying what will happen under the ACA to the current system, which doesn't reflect the reality of the system.

Take for example a 20 something who is just starting out, and opts not to purchase health insurance, or takes a job with a small company that cannot afford to offer health insurance because their pool is so small. The have a gall bladder attack and need to have it removed. Your looking at a $15K or larger bill. How do they pay for that with little no credit? They may not be considered to be a "free rider", but their situation results in rates for insured to go up to cover the costs that the hospital is unable to recoup.

As for fairness, the whole argument for transferring money from the young to the old can be used to describe both the social security program and medicare. And yes it is fair, when you consider that they will be old some day and will be looking for their social security and medicare.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?

I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?
> 
> I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.



It comes from personally knowing a number of people that OHIP has sent across to Detroit for treatment, and people that have sought their own treatment there, on their own dime.

In all cases, it was because of the expertise, short wait times (hours or days, compared to months and years) and superb equipment available.

Nothing to do with media, or your other stated sources.


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It comes from personally knowing a number of people that OHIP has sent across to Detroit for treatment, and people that have sought their own treatment there, on their own dime.
> 
> In all cases, it was because of the expertise, short wait times (hours or days, compared to months and years) and superb equipment available.
> 
> Nothing to do with media, or your other stated sources.



Thanks for your response. I appreciate your candor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Just for clarification, how many people that are responding to this tread have personal experience (current or past) with the US health care system?
> 
> I'm not looking to make a "well you haven't been there so you don't know / can't comment" argument. I'm just curious as to whether the arguments are generated from personal experience or from what is / has been stated in various media sources, research or other knowledge bases.




I live, part time, in Texas - with friends (adults in their 40s with two teen-aged kids) who are both employed. I understand, from them and their friends, the values and shortfalls of company provided health insurance. I also know, because I checked (at my age one does): how much it costs, per night, for an ICU or critical care bed in a Texas hospital and how much an air ambulance costs, too.

What I'm well aware of is that health insurance schemes are different - my friend's plan (provided by a very posh private school), for example, has 'better' prescription drug benefits than her husband's plan (provided by a (Japanese) high tech giant) and even covers some 'holistic medicine' treatments. One of the (several) reasons she moved from a major US research university to the private school was the benefits package, including the "health and wellness" plan.


----------



## cupper (6 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I live, part time, in Texas - with friends (adults in their 40s with two teen-aged kids) who are both employed. I understand, from them and their friends, the values and shortfalls of company provided health insurance. I also know, because I checked (at my age one does): how much it costs, per night, for an ICU or critical care bed in a Texas hospital and how much an air ambulance costs, too.
> 
> What I'm well aware of is that health insurance schemes are different - my friend's plan (provided by a very posh private school), for example, has 'better' prescription drug benefits than her husband's plan (provided by a (Japanese) high tech giant) and even covers some 'holistic medicine' treatments. One of the (several) reasons she moved from a major US research university to the private school was the benefits package, including the "health and wellness" plan.



Thank you sir.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jul 2012)

>The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance.

I figured as much, and most of those people are not "free riders"; they are recipients of charity - they can not afford health insurance and can not afford to pay over the counter.  The people you think of as "free riders" are in fact another source of funds to providers trying to make up their losses - if this were not true, there would not be legions of complaints about the fee differentials between what is charged to insured people and what is charged to people who pay out of pocket.

Again, denial of claim <> rationing.  There is no point having a language if the meaningful differences between words and phrases are going to be blurred in the service of rhetoric.

"Take for example..."   Fine, but if the example boils down to someone who can not pay - regardless whether it is because of low income, zero assets, no credit - it is an example of charity.  The alternative is to not be charitable, not to pretend the person is a "free rider".  These recipients of care are not imposing themselves on the system: the care is an obligation imposed by the state or undertaken voluntarily (in the case of hospitals run by truly charitable organizations).  Where the state has imposed the obligation and does not provide the funds, it is really the state which is the "free rider".


----------



## cupper (6 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The "free riders" are the ones who have no health insurance, and show up at the emergency rooms because they have no insurance.
> 
> I figured as much, and most of those people are not "free riders"; they are recipients of charity - they can not afford health insurance and can not afford to pay over the counter.  The people you think of as "free riders" are in fact another source of funds to providers trying to make up their losses - if this were not true, there would not be legions of complaints about the fee differentials between what is charged to insured people and what is charged to people who pay out of pocket.
> 
> ...



OMG Brad. You're sounding like a liberal ;D

I agree that this debate gets lost in the definitions. What gets me is the mindset that health care is a business, or an industry. It seems that they have lost sight that access to affordable health care is a basic fundamental right. Yes there is a place for business entities to provide it, and that they should be able to make reasonable returns on their investments. But when you add layer upon layer of for profit entities looking for their fair share, cost control goes out the window.

What the right model is, I could guess at a mix of government run basic and emergency health care and private provider options for non critical specialized care, similar to what was described in a previous post.

But you still haven't heard anything from the GOP other than repeal and replace. We don't know what they would replace it with, other than the parts of the ACA that are already in force (which would be hellishly hard to pull back from those using it now), and some of teh parts that will come in in 2014.

And this seems to be the biggest problem with Romney's message. He's campaigning against Obama, but what concrete policy proposals have were gotten out of them?


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jul 2012)

A good friend of mine owns 2 Liberty Tax Offices (small franchises like H&R Block). He was going to open another office next year; since the SCOTUS decision, he has decided not to. It would put him over a threshold of 25 employees and the added employee healthcare costs are substantial enough (to a tax accountant) to decide not to open any more offices in spite of the relative success of his other 2 locations. (1 boomed, the other not so much).

I can't imagine he is the only businessman to reach such a conclusion but I do concur that one anecdote is a small sample size.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jul 2012)

One anecdote is certainly a small sample size, but it can equally be the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2012)

Health care is a business, and should be run like one.  If health care providers ran their operations as well as Walmart, I suppose it would be the people too snobby to shop at Walmart who would go without health care (the clinics and hospitals would be filled with Mr and Mrs Average - yuck).

Health care is not a fundamental right.   A fundamental right is something like life, liberty, or property.  Health care is a civil right (privilege/entitlement).  Misrepresenting it as a fundamental right tends to obscure the fact that an entitlement for one person imposes an obligation on another.  A person is not a means to an end for other people.

The flip side of private profit is layer upon layer of government bureaucrats running their little fiefdoms, submitting new reasons every year why they need more minions to oversee and more processes to execute, queueing up at the bargaining table periodically to demand more benefits.  Different, but not better.  There is always "squeeze" to be paid.

The right model is government-funded (not government-run) catastrophic care (ie. single payer for big-bill services and emergencies), and government-subsidized health spending accounts for people on low incomes.  I doubt government needs to be involved any more deeply than that, because otherwise the most effective (really, the only) cost control of all - consumer shops and pays - is lost.

I have read plenty from the GOP.  I realize the web is full of ostriches pundits in denial that the GOP has put anything on the table, but that is just rank dishonesty in the service of partisanship.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2012)

:goodpost:

And the same logic can be applied to virtually every government office or function. The minimal exceptions is the Courts to enforce the Rule of Law, and I will allow that for very large scale operations there are some efficiencies to letting the State do the job.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jul 2012)

Rationed healthcare isnt good for anyone. In the US if you show up at the ER they have to treat you. Thats not necessarily the case in the UK for example.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

A group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death. 

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away. 

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn. 

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others. 

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients." 

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS. 

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours. 

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions. 

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004. 

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system. 

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor. 

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication. 

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems. 

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance. 

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit. 

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention. 

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition. 

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die. 

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in. 

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.” 

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying. 

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.” 

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition. 

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours. 

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands. 

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said. 

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care. 

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients. 

“There is no one size fits all approach.” 

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying. 

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings. 

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.” 

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death. 

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes. 

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University. 

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care. 

"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives. 

"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”


----------



## exabedtech (8 Jul 2012)

Health care isn't a fundamental right?  I find it hard to understand how it is possible for a person living in a first world country and having citizenship in that country could find themselves in a position where a simple procedure such as  repairing a few broken bones from a car crash or treating a kidney stone could result in financial hardship.

The idea of NOT having a universal health care plan is ridiculous.  Our system in Canada may not be perfect, but at least we have access to preventative medicine, don't worry about going bankrupt over a rough pregnancy and have access to a doctor, either you own or at a medicentre, for any reason or no reason.

I find it truly mind boggling that the US hasn't been able to come up with 1st world medical care for all of its citizens when so many different systems exist that they could emulate if only they had the political will. 

Why are our wait times longer than in the US?  Simple - its because we ALL have access to the system.  Unlimited demand with limited supply = wait times.  

Another interesting thread idea may well be 'will the US collapse under its debt load and corrupt government and become a series of 3rd world countries"


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Health care isn't a fundamental right?  I find it hard to understand how it is possible for a person living in a first world country and having citizenship in that country could find themselves in a position where a simple procedure such as  repairing a few broken bones from a car crash or treating a kidney stone could result in financial hardship.
> 
> The idea of NOT having a universal health care plan is ridiculous.  Our system in Canada may not be perfect, but at least we have access to preventative medicine, don't worry about going bankrupt over a rough pregnancy and have access to a doctor, either you own or at a medicentre, for any reason or no reason.
> 
> ...





 :bullshit:

I'm hoping you're just trolling, looking for a fight ... if you really believe most of what you wrote then your are hopelessly disconnected from reality. Only your fourth sentence makes any sense at all; the rest is sophomoric drivel. (300 milpoints deducted for trolling)


----------



## exabedtech (8 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :bullshit:
> 
> I'm hoping you're just trolling, looking for a fight ... if you really believe most of what you wrote then your are hopelessly disconnected from reality. Only your fourth sentence makes any sense at all; the rest is sophomoric drivel. (300 milpoints deducted for trolling)



No, not trolling.  Outside of the US, i'd imagine it to be the prevailing view in 1st world countries.  Certainly it is the way most see things around here


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2012)

No, most are force fed the party line and any attempt to examine the system and propose/introduce changes result in being shouted down with cries of "American style health care". There is no informed debate on the subject because a lot of people benefit from the system the way it is and these rent seekers have created large and powerful special interest groups which has been able to stifle debate, innovation and change, while extracting an ever larger piece of the economic pie.

Notice the patient is not represented here; they are now simply pawns in the system used as hostages to extract more funds or pawns to promote "new" initiatives by politicians.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2012)

Back to the election in the United States, here is some data that could well be used to impact not only the Presidential election but also many of the downline elections as well. Given that the real (U3) unemployment rate is over 10%, this isn't "much" of an improvement, but it shows the way ahead:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/07/Unemployment-Rate-Dropped-In-Every-State-That-Elected-A-Republican-Gov-In-2010



> *UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010*
> 
> by TONY LEE  8 Jul 2012, 6:24 AM PDT
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Jul 2012)

Another example of how Romney travels in circles that reinforces that he is out of touch with the working and middle class.

*Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons*

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/romney-donors-out-in-force-in-hamptons/?hp

This is the best bit from whole story:



> A few cars back, Ted Conklin, the owner of the American Hotel in Sag Habor, N.Y., long a favorite of the well-off and well-known in the Hamptons, could barely contain his displeasure with Mr. Obama. “He is a socialist. His idea is find a problem that doesn’t exist and get government to intervene,” Mr. Conklin said from inside a gold-colored Mercedes as his wife, Carol Simmons, nodded in agreement.
> 
> *Ms. Simmons paused to highlight what she said was her husband’s generous spirit: “Tell them who’s on your yacht this weekend! Tell him!”*
> 
> Over Mr. Conklin’s objections, Ms. Simmons disclosed that a major executive from Miramax, the movie company, was on the 75-foot yacht, because, she said, there were no rooms left at the hotel.



 :facepalm:


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jul 2012)

The Romney bashing is hard to fathom.  Mr Obama had zero executive experience before becoming President. Romney has alot of successful executive experience that might prove useful in digging the country out of recession/depression.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Certainly it is the way most see things around here



If by most you mean the "ill-informed/ill-educated/sheep-brained", then yes.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Another example of how Romney travels in circles that reinforces that he is out of touch with the working and middle class.
> 
> *Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons*
> 
> ...



At what point in US history did being rich and successful become something to be ashamed of? Mr Romney is rich, but so is Mr. Obama.  Perhaps they should get that Joe the Plumber guy to run... he isn't rich, and he's in tune with the common man!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Another example of how Romney travels in circles that reinforces that he is out of touch with the working and middle class.
> 
> *Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons*
> 
> ...



You're shitting me right? With all those disconnected Hollywood actors, actresses, film directors and studio owners that not only support Obama by shill for him and make grand documentaries about him? All those 'entertainers'?

You pull this one example of someone with money, who is allowed to vote and have an opinion also, to say Romney doesn't know the working class and is disconnected?

Your arse is a star, buddy boy.


----------



## cupper (8 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're shitting me right? With all those disconnected Hollywood actors, actresses, film directors and studio owners that not only support Obama by shill for him and make grand documentaries about him? All those 'entertainers'?
> 
> You pull this one example of someone with money, who is allowed to vote and have an opinion also, to say Romney doesn't know the working class and is disconnected?
> 
> Your arse is a star, buddy boy.


There is nothing wrong with being successful. He doesn't even need to apologize for it.

But do not try and sell the man as being able to understand the plight of the working man, that he is just like the working class guy he's trying to curry a vote from.

When the narrative from the other side is that billionaires are trying to buy the election, this does not help, and may indeed hurt the credibility.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2012)

And when a lobby group of your own calls you out for not doing enough, time to rethink your approach.

*House Farm Bill cuts don’t go nearly far enough *

http://rstreet.org/news-release/house-farm-bill-cuts-dont-go-nearly-far-enough/



> “For all of their tea party bluster, the House Republicans have proposed a wasteful, big government program that disrupts the private market, spends billions of taxpayer dollars that we don’t have and harms the environment,” R Street President Eli Lehrer said. “If Republicans are serious about cutting government, they need to start from scratch.”


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2012)

And another example of the conservative echo chamber turning significant members of the right away.

*Who Needs Posner When You Have Mises and Hayek?*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/who-needs-posner-when-you-have-mises-and-hayek-.html



> Of course, conservatives will tell you they care a lot about intellectual grounding. These days, they especially love Austrian economists, such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. I have a whole bookshelf dedicated to duplicate copies of Austrian economics books that conservative and libertarian organizations have given to me for free. I have four copies of The Road to Serfdom, which is like Dianetics for libertarians.
> 
> There are two big reasons today's right loves the Austrians. One is that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles. It's philosophy dressed up as economics; *with the Austrians, there is never any risk that real-world events will interfere with your ideology.*


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your arse is a star, buddy boy.



It may be a star, but unfortunately my wife has laid claim to it. :nana:


----------



## Redeye (9 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And another example of the conservative echo chamber turning significant members of the right away.
> 
> *Who Needs Posner When You Have Mises and Hayek?*
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/who-needs-posner-when-you-have-mises-and-hayek-.html



Wow. That one highlighted statement pretty much sums up why most economists from across their spectrum of views dismiss Austrian economics.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And another example of the conservative echo chamber turning significant members of the right away.
> 
> *Who Needs Posner When You Have Mises and Hayek?*
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/who-needs-posner-when-you-have-mises-and-hayek-.html





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Wow. That one highlighted statement pretty much sums up why most economists from across their spectrum of views dismiss Austrian economics.



Actually, the blog post kind of sucked.  The responses by "Pater Tenebrarum" et al were much better as a discussion pieces


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2012)

"Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons"

How is that newsworthy compared to "Obama Donors Out in Force in Switzerland"?


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2012)

"One is that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles. It's philosophy dressed up as economics; with the Austrians, there is never any risk that real-world events will interfere with your ideology."

Ironically, scientists and engineers are extraordinarily fond of reasoning from first principles.  Empirical analysis is how hypotheses are tested and refined.  Should I interpret this to mean the non-Austrians have no desire whatsoever to have a science of economics?

Absent a working discipline of psycho-history, the empiricists are just wankers looking over very small pieces of a whole.  I don't think we are in imminent danger of any first-rank minds joining the ranks of economists to give us psycho-history.  They learn just about enough math to deal with their simple empiricism, and retreat from the really hard stuff with relief.  And they certainly are never going to find correct answers if they disregard common sense human behaviour.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2012)

Of course we _can_ add empirical evidence to the mix;  the observed causes of the 2008 economic collapse were misallocation of economic resources due to low interest rates and perverse incentives (such as the supposition that GSE's had implicit government backing).

Which fits very closely with the Austrian economic model.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Ironically, scientists and engineers are extraordinarily fond of reasoning from first principles.  Empirical analysis is how hypotheses are tested and refined.



Historically Engineers tended to build on the work of scientists. And more engineering knowledge has been learned from failure analysis than theoretical developments. Scientists seem to have a need to figure out why something works the way it does. Engineers just have a need to figure out how to make it work better.

If you don't agree, just look at the technology that was in place before the advent of most of the mathematics that are used to develope explain first principles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Historically Engineers tended to build on the work of scientists. And more engineering knowledge has been learned from failure analysis than theoretical developments. Scientists seem to have a need to figure out why something works the way it does. Engineers just have a need to figure out how to make it work better.
> 
> If you don't agree, just look at the technology that was in place before the advent of most of the mathematics that are used to develope explain first principles.




Yep!


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2012)

Yes, yes, I've heard all that before in first year university.  None of it deflects the point: start with first principles (axioms) to obtain the most comprehensive theory.  That which is not understood can not be reliably predicted.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2012)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.........

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-takes-credit-inspiring-lexus-hybrid-suv-which-began-production



> *Obama Administration Takes Credit for Inspiring Lexus Hybrid SUV--Which Began Production in 2004*
> By Eric Scheiner
> July 9, 2012
> Subscribe to Eric Scheiner's posts
> ...



George W Bush will stop at nothing........


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.........
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-takes-credit-inspiring-lexus-hybrid-suv-which-began-production
> 
> George W Bush will stop at nothing........



And Al Gore invented the internet. What is your point?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And Al Gore invented the internet. What is your point?



Seriously? What's the point?  :

The point is that they are liars, at best.

Of course the Obama aplologists will spin it that that's not strictly what they meant. Just like they didn't strictly mean it when they said Obama killed Bin Laden, but they'll still take the credit. 

Just that they imply all these great feats about themselves to the guillable hoping that they'll believe the great Hope & Change myth.

Oh wait, they already used that one. It proved a lie also.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Seriously? What's the point?  :
> 
> The point is that they are liars, at best.
> 
> ...



You really expect any politician to tell the truth? Let alone in an election year?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And Al Gore invented the internet. What is your point?





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> You really expect any politician to tell the truth? Let alone in an election year?



You answered your own question.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And Al Gore invented the internet. What is your point?



If they are grasping at straws like this now (taking credit for something that happened midway through the Bush Administration) with something so easily disproved, how are they going to handle getting the hard questions about lingering unemployment higher than 10%, lackluster economic growth for the past three years, Crony capitalist bailouts and "stimulus" monies being poured into nonexistent congressional districts, "Fast and Furious", unconstitutional Executive orders, foreign policy fails....

I predict an endlessly entertaining election season as the Democrats start shooting themselves in the foot more and more often.


----------



## cupper (10 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I predict an endlessly entertaining election season as the Democrats both parties start  keep shooting themselves in the foot more and more often until no one is left standing.



TFTFY


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2012)

Since 60% of Ameericans are against Obamacare, this will obviously be part of the election narrative. Less obvious, perhaps is how Obamacare can also affect the downline elections at the State level. Here are the ways Obamacare can be smothered by actions at the State level, which should be interesting election fodder for these races:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/10/the-ballot-box-is-not-the-only-way-to-stop-obamacare/



> *The ballot box is not the only way to stop Obamacare*
> Published: 4:17 PM 07/10/2012
> By Jeffrey Singer
> Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2012)

Dr Rice being considered as a potential VP candidate? "I had a Dream" would be fulfilled.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/audio-exclusive-the-speech-that-landed-condi-on-r



> *Audio Exclusive: The Speech That Landed Condi On Romney's List*
> A call to “storm Washington D.C.” Speculation in Park City that “she wants to be Vice President.”
> McKay Coppins
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2012)

That would be an interesting ticket...


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2012)

Rice is a proven commodity....far better than Palin....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Rice is a proven commodity....far better than Palin....



and H Clinton, IMHO.


----------



## Sythen (13 Jul 2012)

Why compare her only to other females? She is an amazing choice, regardless of who you match her against.


----------



## cupper (13 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Dr Rice being considered as a potential VP candidate? "I had a Dream" would be fulfilled.....
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/audio-exclusive-the-speech-that-landed-condi-on-r



Much as I like Condi, I think it would be a mistake for her to join on the ticket. Her talents would be better suited serving the same roles she had with Bush 43.


----------



## Bass ackwards (13 Jul 2012)

Four years ago, I seem to recall hearing something to the effect that Dr Rice wanted nothing to do with being on the ticket.
Her reasoning being that she figured the MSM would go after her family and she didn't want to put them through that.


----------



## cupper (13 Jul 2012)

Regardless of party affiliation, one would have to be insane to put themselves and their family through this meat grinder.


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Regardless of party affiliation, one would have to be insane to put themselves and their family through this meat grinder.



Ah.....but the power.....


----------



## cupper (13 Jul 2012)

Could someone on the Scott Brown campaign please put a muzzle on him so you don't need to issue a walk back of some asinine statement his brain farts out every day.

*Brown’s staff walks back his claims -- again*

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/13/browns_talk_of_constant_white_house_calls_butts_against_reality_of_staffs_own_records/



> First, it was kings and queens. Now, it is heads of state — and the secretary of state.
> 
> During a CNN interview that aired Tuesday, Senator Scott Brown said that President Obama and other powerful Democrats are regularly phoning him to get help passing their legislation.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Jul 2012)

One strike against Condi as Veep.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/



> Romney stands by anti-abortion VP pledge
> By ALEXANDER BURNS |
> 7/13/12 7:05 PM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (14 Jul 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Four years ago, I seem to recall hearing something to the effect that Dr Rice wanted nothing to do with being on the ticket.
> Her reasoning being that she figured the MSM would go after her family and she didn't want to put them through that.



And three weeks ago she said the same. Not happening.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57460324/condoleezza-rice-says-no-way-to-vp-for-romney/


----------



## cupper (14 Jul 2012)

Romney is getting serious calls from within his own party to be more transparent with his finances.

*Alabama’s GOP Governor Calls On Romney To Release More Tax Returns: ‘Release Everything To The American People’*

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/14/517601/alabama-gop-governor-calls-on-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns/



> In a series of interviews yesterday, Mitt Romney mainatined he would only release tax returns dating back two years. Romney told CNN, “that’s all that’s necessary for people to understand something about my finances.”
> 
> Robert Bently, the Republican Governor of Alabama, isn’t satisfied.
> 
> ...



And from the Post:

*Mitt Romney faces new round of calls to release tax returns*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-faces-new-round-of-calls-to-release-tax-returns/2012/07/12/gJQATAdZgW_story.html



> The candidate submitted to public pressure during the Republican primaries and released his 2010 tax returns, and he has said he will release his 2011 returns later this year once they are complete. Although Romney has followed the law, he has not adhered to historical precedent. His father, George, released 12 years’ worth of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968, and other top-tier candidates have traditionally taken a similar approach.
> 
> For the Romney campaign, the calculation is complex, as his advisers are weighing the benefits of transparency against the potential problems he could face should the documents reveal — or even appear to reveal — that he has gamed the tax code.
> 
> For now, Romney’s advisers said that the candidate has been sufficiently transparent and that he has no plans to disclose additional tax filings. But with four months left until Election Day — and the near-certainty that Romney will face questions about his finances in any interviews and in the fall debates — his advisers might be forced to reevaluate their strategy if the issue damages his standing in the polls.





> Strategist Mark McKinnon said the candidate's reluctance to release his taxes feeds into the Obama campaign’s argument that Romney is hiding something and taking advantage of the system to enrich himself.
> 
> “I think it’s pretty obvious there is something in the records that is problematic or the Romney campaign would have turned them over by now,” he said. “And they are gambling that the heat they’ll take for not disclosing is less than the fire they’ll take for the information that will become public if they do disclose.”


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Nice analysis by Ezra Klein on how the 112th Congress is the worst Congress Ever.

*14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/?hpid=z6



> 1. They are not passing laws.
> 
> 2. They're hideously unpopular.
> 
> ...



It's well worth the few minutes to read. And shows that there is blame enough for all, GOP, Dems and the White House.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Maybe Romney needs to retool his approach, at least according to the GOP Governors.

*Republican governors want Mitt Romney to hit back*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78509.html



> WILLIAMSBURG, Va., — Republican governors gathered here this weekend gently nudged Mitt Romney to wage a more aggressive campaign, urging the GOP standard bearer to share more about his background and draw a sharper contrast between his vision and that of President Barack Obama.
> 
> In a series of interviews, the chief executives said they’d like to hear their presidential nominee rebut Obama’s criticism about Bain Capital, the company Romney formerly led, by explaining what the venture-capital firm did while offering a more forward-leaning recitation of what he’d do in the White House.
> 
> ...



And at the same time it seems Dem Governors have an opinion on the President's campaign as well:

*Democratic govs to Obama: Message still needs work*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78498.html



> Democratic governors have a message for President Barack Obama: A lot of his economic rhetoric still isn’t catching, and he’s leaving out key points that could help.
> 
> Asked whether Arkansas voters have faith in Obama to fix the economy, Gov. Mike Beebe replied: “That’s hard to say.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Nice analysis by Ezra Klein on how the 112th Congress is the worst Congress Ever.
> 
> *14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever*
> 
> ...



The biggest part of the blame should sit on the Senate, they have failed to propose or pass a budget for three years (and will make it four by the end of this session) and simply sit on anything that comes from the House. Regardless of which party is in power in the House, the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house, and if they don't like it, propose something of their own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The biggest part of the blame should sit on the Senate, they have failed to propose or pass a budget for three years (and will make it four by the end of this session) and simply sit on anything that comes from the House. Regardless of which party is in power in the House, the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house, and if they don't like it, propose something of their own.



No! The whole place is _unpatriotic_, it is downright _Un-American_. The Democrats are, to be sure, negligent and irresponsible, but the Republicans are no beter - no worse, but not even one tiny iota better. 99% of the senators and representatives have forgotten that they are there to serve their country, not the blind, greedy, partisan interests of their party. Nor were they elected to serve the ravings of fools and charlatans and backroom _activists_ like Grover Norquist - people who are too lazy, or to crooked or just to cowardly to stand for office themselves.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

The conservative narrative this week has been bad for the Romney campaign, as I've shown in my past few posts.

And it is only getting worse:

From David Frum (who has become completely dissatisfied with the Way the far right has co-opted the party):

*Romney: Too Weak?*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/15/romney-weak.html



> This is powerfully said by Josh Marshall on Friday the 13th, a bad day for Mitt Romney:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the original article Frum references from Talking Points Memo:

*Weak, Weak, Weak*

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/honest_question_does_anything_think.php?ref=fpblg



> Honest question: does anyone think Romney helped himself with this round of television interviews? This is more fact-finding than rhetorical. And the people whose opinions I’d be most curious to hear are those of Republican operatives — people who want the answer to be ‘yes’ but are politically sophisticated enough to know if it’s not.
> 
> The headline in the Times is “Romney Seeks Obama Apology for Bain Attacks”.
> 
> ...



Even though Romney is the presumptive nominee, is it possible that if things do not improve soon, that we could see some back door maneuvering to put someone else at the top of the ticket? It would be conceding the race to the Dems, but with the focus shifted to the congressional races they could gain control and spend 4 more years obstructing and controling the agenda.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house



Show me the definitive section of the Constitution that says this.

Article One Section 7 Clause 2 says:



> Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives *and* the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.



Furthermore, Section 5 Clause 2 states:



> Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.



There is nothing that says either house is required to take up legislation that has been passed by the other house.

Mr. Campbell is correct in his response.

Both parties and both houses are morally (if not legally) corrupt for having taken their salaries paid by the taxpayers they were elected to represent, and do essentially nothing for it. In a time of economic crisis, we get bills and amendments that have nothing to do with getting the economy back on track, instead we get bills and amendments trying to limit or eliminate abortion, women's access to contraception, 33 votes over 18 months (more than 2 per month, assuming that congress actually sat the whole time) to repeal the ACA. We've gotten extension after extension to current appropriations, but only after taking it to the edge of the cliff.

And now we have discussions about how after the election, regardless of the outcome, we could well see the whole thing go over the cliff to make a point.

No, don't point the finger only at the Democrat led Senate. Point it at the obstructionist Senate GOP minority, the Tea Party tail that wags the rest of the GOP dog. A clueless, spineless House speaker and his power hungry majority leader. An impotent Democratic house. And a directionless Democratic President who was forced to shift from trying to get a consensus to fighting for every crumb he was able to extract.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Something else that is telling about Romney's lack of transparency regarding his tax returns.

We are hearing from more and more GOP notables and conservatives, but conspicuously absent from the discussion is McCain, or anyone involved in the vetting of Veeps in the 2008 campaign who had access to 20 plus years of Romney's financial records.

You would think that if there wasn't an issue with them, they could at least indicate such, without violating any confidentiality agreements.

*Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns*

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/conservative-romney-taxes-returns-hiding-something.php



> It’s a bad sign for Mitt Romney when conservatives begin to question why the presumptive Republican nominee won’t release more of his tax returns. But on Sunday, that’s what happened. Conservative analysts joined Democrats in wondering whether Romney is just being impolitic in not releasing several years worth of returns — or whether he’s trying to hide something.
> 
> Democrats have been calling on Mitt Romney to release more than one year of his tax returns with a series of web videos and public statements. So far, he has released his 2010 returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns.
> 
> ...



Further in the article, Rohm Emmanuel makes an interesting point, even if it doesn't hold up under deeper scrutiny:



> On ABC’s “This Week,” Chicago’s mayor and Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that in 2008, John McCain saw 23 years of Romney’s tax returns and opted for Sarah Palin instead.
> 
> “The Romney campaign isn’t stupid,” Emanuel said. “They have decided that it’s better to get attacked on a lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people, versus telling you what’s in those taxes.”


----------



## Sythen (15 Jul 2012)

And they called Conservatives "crazy" and "stupid" for demanding Obama's birth certificate. He should not release his tax returns, but his birth certificate instead, in order to show how stupid this is, and immediately give a ton of interviews and only talk about the real issues. Which is why Obama and his supporters are so focused on this ridiculous thing, because if anyone looks at how he has run the country, then he will lose.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

It may be a trivial point, but it is relevant to the discussion. Are his tax policies influenced by his own financial experiences, with the potential of enhancing his own fortune? Did he game the system by moving money off shore? The tax payers deserve an answer when making their decision in November.

Furthermore, it has been the practice to release a significant number of years worth of returns. The current narrative is set by the Obama campaign. Is he hiding something? The only way to counter act it is to face it head on and release the information. Otherwise it comes across as a weakness. 

Oh, and it wasn't conservatives that were called crazy for demanding the birth certificate. It was the looney fringe conspiracy theorists such as Donald Trump they were calling crazy. The majority of conservatives knew this was a bogus trap that should have died a quick death back in 2007 / 2008.


----------



## Sythen (15 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> The tax payers deserve an answer when making their decision in November.



Actually, no they don't. His personal finances, as long as he stayed within the law, is no one elses business. Its a distraction and pure nonsense. If they want to judge him, go off his record as Governor or as CEO of Bain Capital. Heck, even lefty CNN had an article claiming Obama implications that Romney was in charge after Feb 1999 are ridiculous, so let his records speak for themselves.



> Furthermore, it has been the practice to release a significant number of years worth of returns. The current narrative is set by the Obama campaign. Is he hiding something? The only way to counter act it is to face it head on and release the information. Otherwise it comes across as a weakness.



Its also been practice recently to release their birth certificate. Funny how that goes, eh? Ignore the rhetoric, and come out swinging on the facts and real issues. Anything else is just Obama swinging at flies. Its like him trying to focus the election on the gay marriage debate, which Romney very intelligently avoided.



> Oh, and it wasn't conservatives that were called crazy for demanding the birth certificate. It was the looney fringe conspiracy theorists such as Donald Trump they were calling crazy. The majority of conservatives knew this was a bogus trap that should have died a quick death back in 2007 / 2008.



And this issue should be treated with equal scorn and disdain as anyone with a head of their shoulders can see the Obama campaign trying to focus on anything but actually leading the country.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Actually, no they don't. His personal finances, as long as he stayed within the law, is no one elses business. Its a distraction and pure nonsense. If they want to judge him, go off his record as Governor or as CEO of Bain Capital.



Romney needs to address this. He is putting his record as CEO up as a reason why he is a better choice than Obama. Part of that record is how he profited from that. None of which has been made public, hidden by a thin legal claim of proprietary business privilege by Bain, a company he has repeatedly claimed to have been retired from and had no executive involvement with since 1999.

I agree that whether he retired in 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant in the whole scheme of the debate. A  red herring.  But again it goes to the perception that Romney is not being fully forthcoming about his history.

In an election that is going to be won or lost by single digit margins, it's the narrative that will win or lose you the election, not policy and platform. Obama is now guiding the narrative about Romney, and the best that his campaign has come up with is to whine about how they are being attacked. And Obama gets another news cycle where the focus is not on the economy.

Which is the whole point that I've been putting across. Release the info, take the heat, and pull the focus back to the economy and take control of the narrative. In politics optics trump reason and policy.

And enough with the birth certificate BS. No one gives a rat's patootie it any more. And why? Because they released it.

Amazing how that works isn't it? :sarcasm:


----------



## Sythen (15 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Romney needs to address this. He is putting his record as CEO up as a reason why he is a better choice than Obama. Part of that record is how he profited from that. None of which has been made public, hidden by a thin legal claim of proprietary business privilege by Bain, a company he has repeatedly claimed to have been retired from and had no executive involvement with since 1999.
> 
> I agree that whether he retired in 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant in the whole scheme of the debate. A  red herring.  But again it goes to the perception that Romney is not being fully forthcoming about his history.
> 
> ...



His personal finances have absolutely NOTHING to do with how he ran the company. Period. Any attempt to try to make that assertion is just as crazy as birthers. btw, he didn't release the long form or whatever of it. I didn't really keep track of that nonsense after the first month as it became clear it was foolish. Just as foolish as releasing tax forms.

If Romney were to succumb to this nonsense and release his info, the next news cycle would just be some other foolishness or outright lie from the Obama campaign/supporters that would be distracting. Ignore it, because regardless of what Romney says or does, most media outlets will pine for Obama. Keep your speeches about the economy, the declining American influence overseas and the fact Obama is probably the worst president in history, who outright refuses to take personal responsibility for anything. For attack ads, I'd focus them on him getting involved with things that are none of his business, like that professor and police officer who he ended up inviting for a beer, if Zimmerman is found not guilty before the election, focus on him trying to sway the verdict early on for political points. Focus on him not attending the NAACP meeting. The key for Romney, I believe, is not necessarily getting a lot more votes, but disenfranchising the "black vote" so they stay home on election day.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> btw, he didn't release the long form or whatever of it.



Actually he did. The first release way back in 2007 / 08 was a short form copy. The tin foil hat society wouldn't accept that as proof, and kept bringing it up. When Trump flapped his gums, they brought out the long form.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> if Zimmerman is found not guilty before the election, focus on him trying to sway the verdict early on for political points. Focus on him not attending the NAACP meeting. The key for Romney, I believe, is not necessarily getting a lot more votes, but disenfranchising the "black vote" so they stay home on election day.



Seriously? I really need to start investing in Alcoa. :


----------



## Sythen (15 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually he did. The first release way back in 2007 / 08 was a short form copy. The tin foil hat society wouldn't accept that as proof, and kept bringing it up. When Trump flapped his gums, they brought out the long form.



Since I am too lazy to fact check this, I'll take your word on it and admit I was wrong. This does not change the fact that the same people who are calling birthers everything but decent people are now demanding its basic equivalent in terms of foolishness and distraction from the actual issues.



> Seriously? I really need to start investing in Alcoa. :



Not really sure what you meant by this.


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Not really sure what you meant by this.



You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?

If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies. 

And God knows we're getting lots of examples of conspiracies this election cycle.

So, I could make some big money investing in aluminum products, specifically  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Redeye (16 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?
> 
> If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies.
> 
> ...



That's the thing that's most amazing - the number of bizarre things that are being brought out in the campaign. 

Here's my favourite: all these voter ID laws to deal with the non-existent problem of alleged fraud. What these rules are mainly set up to do is disenfranchise large numbers of voters who conveniently happen to be likely to vote Democratic.

It's one thing to point fingers at what's obviously happen. Then there's GOP politicians like the Pennsylvania GOP Speaker of the House openly admitting why they're doing it. http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

And that is, I think the rational behind all such movements. The Democrats are going to have to get busy making sure they get around all these rules - making sure people have the ID they need so they can exercise the right that the US Constitution guarantees them.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2012)

The Obama team may have already taken their most effective shots. Look for continuing panic as the economy continues to be front and center for voters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/july-panic-for-obama--for-good-reason/2012/07/15/gJQARQFXmW_blog.html%22



> *July panic for Obama — for good reason*
> By Jennifer Rubin
> 
> Why has the Obama team been publicly wailing about losing out to Mitt Romney in the money race? Why would the president accuse his opponent of not merely being wrong or unqualified but criminal? After all, the polls are tied, so why so much worry in Obamaland?
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The Democrats are going to have to get busy making sure they get around all these rules - making sure people have the ID they need so they can exercise the right that the US Constitution guarantees them.


So....

You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are?  

(Just curious)...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So....
> 
> You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are?
> 
> (Just curious)...



There is a Supreme Court challenge over that very issue in Canada right now.  So which is it- ID or no ID to vote?

Or does it depend entirely on who wins the election whether ID was a good thing, or not?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Or does it depend entirely on who wins the election whether ID was a good thing, or not?



Yes:

http://americanglob.com/2012/07/10/journalists-required-to-show-ids-at-eric-holders-talk-on-the-evil-of-ids/



> *Journalists Required To Show IDs at Eric Holder’s Talk On The Evil of IDs*
> 
> If you think it’s fine for the government to force you to buy something but you’re insulted by the idea of having to prove your citizenship in order to vote… you might be a liberal.
> 
> ...



and:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/07/11/doj-witness-can-fly-to-washington-but-cant-get-voterid/



> *DOJ Witness Can Fly to Washington, But Can’t Get Voter ID (Updated)*
> July 11, 2012 - 2:19 pm - by J. Christian Adams
> 
> This is too much.  The Justice Department actually called a witness in the Texas Voter ID trial today in Washington, D.C.  The witness complained she couldn’t find the time to get her parents to drive her to get the free photo ID, but she obviously had time to fly to Washington, D.C., from Texas to testify at trial!
> ...



Of course anyone boarding an airplane in the United States also needs to show ID......


----------



## Redeye (16 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So....
> 
> You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are?
> 
> (Just curious)...



That's actually not the issue. In Canada, for example, there are a large number of ways you can identify yourself to vote - to help ensure everyone can do so. In the cases that have raised hackles in the US, identification requirements have gotten to be so restrictive as to be prohibitive, especially combined with the registration process which can be much more onerous.

Couple that with the fact that despite claims of some major voter fraud potential, there are no examples of any such problems existing on a large scale, and of course, that at least one politician has openly stated that the whole concept is being pushed to disenfranchise voters, and I find it rather disturbing. There's been comparisons to a poll tax which are reasonable in cases where the ID required to vote must be purchased. Make the ID required readily available, easy to obtain, and above all free and maybe I'll have less of an issue. But the optics otherwise are all bad - they're being touted (solely by the right) as a means to fix a problem that does not exist, and the side effects are disturbing.

Good write up here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2012)

Voter registration and identification is, or ought to be an issue. 

I'm _inclined towards_ favouring compulsory voting à la Australia and, equally, towards compulsory government photo ID (I would prefer a dozen of so provincial/territorial systems to one national one). The ID should record citizenship status - obviously one will need to update it every so often - amongst other things.

We should, also, make voting easier - especially for students, transients and so on, *but* we should take pains ensure that only citizens vote and the onus ought to be one the voter to prove his/her status.


----------



## Sythen (16 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?
> 
> If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies.
> 
> ...



I see what you meant now. However, I disagree. When the president, almost anytime something happens in the news cycle with race related issues, tries to weigh in when he has no information at all.. That does and should reflect very badly on him. And reminding the American people of his CONSTANT failures in every aspect of leadership should be a priority of the Romney campaign/supporters.

And I don't see how holding him accountable for what he publicly says is a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2012)

>From David Frum 

David Frum is the guy who decided to draw a box around the neo-conservative elements of Bush 43's team and exclude everyone else as unworthy of being conservative.  A neo-conservative is a Democrat, disaffected with Democratic foreign and fiscal policy, who crossed lines to join Republicans.  Of course Frum is going to lack sympathy with the people he defines to be unworthy of being conservative, but the fact he is in the left-leaning middle doesn't make him the most objective observer.

Upthread someone noted than Condi Rice might not want to go through the wringer.  Which wringer would that be?  The one Obama and Biden were wrung through, or the one reserved for Republican vice-presidential candidates?

I am not sure why the party (or its supporters) which conveniently wins close elections by the grace of "misplaced" boxes of ballots after initial results are counted* thinks its opinion on trivial measures to prevent voter fraud matters at all.  (*How many times should that happen before your bullsh!t detector kicks in?)

That the 112th Congress is stalled is a reflection of the fact that one party tried very hard to push the country in a direction that arguably > 50% of the electorate did not want to go, at the opportunity cost of dealing with the crisis of the day.  It is an indicator of the US system working admirably and exactly as designed: the push ain't going any further until the electorate decides to support it, and may be turned back if the electorate decides to oppose it.  The first large leap taken is not automatically entitled to be the starting point for the next negotiation.


----------



## cupper (16 Jul 2012)

Bringing in more onerous rules for voter eligibility are fine and well.

But don't claim you are doing it to correct rampant voter fraud when there is little evidence to back up that claim.

And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Scott Walker and the GOP bring in a requirement to show a government issued ID in order to vote, and at the same time closed close to half of the DMV outlets though out the state. Anyone care to guess in which districts the majority of closures occured?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jul 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is a Supreme Court challenge over that very issue in Canada right now.  So which is it- ID or no ID to vote?



Buried in the case is another contention that could disenfranchise scores of rural voters.



> Taken from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/10/pol-live-supreme-court-etobicoke-centre-appeal.html?cmp=rss
> 
> Wrzesnewskyj is challenging Lederer's contention that voters can cast their ballots at any polling station in the riding as long as they are qualified.



Rural ridings can be huge and one can easily find oneself many hundreds of KM away from one's regular polling station. Should you lose your vote because of it (think living in Yellowknife, working in Inuvik on voting day)? I know there's advance polls, but that shouldn't be the answer, no matter how much onus is on the voter to vote.

Back to the question at hand though, I think voter ID is important, and agree that govt issue ID should be freely/easily available.


----------



## cupper (16 Jul 2012)

Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.

*Big Campaign Spending: Government by the 1%*

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/big-campaign-spending-government-by-the-1/259599/



> A tiny number of Americans -- .26 percent -- give more than $200 to a congressional campaign. .05 percent give the maximum amount to any congressional candidate. .01 percent give more than $10,000 in any election cycle. And .000063 percent -- 196 Americans -- have given more than 80 percent of the super-PAC money spent in the presidential elections so far.


----------



## cupper (16 Jul 2012)

And Romney couldn't carry a tune in a bucket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IpIuOmDihA

I've only heard this add twice, but it's already driving me insane (and not because of the headlines slagging Romney's Bain record).

I can't wait for Nov. 6th to come and go. I hate being in a swing state.

k:


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2012)

>And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.

Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2012)

>Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.

It would be more interesting if it could explain where all of the money spent to support candidates, directly or indirectly, were exposed.

"None can simply buy a congressman, or dictate the results they want."

Is that a fact?  Apparently the author has never heard of lobbyists, special interest groups, or labour unions.

And the thesis that "the rich" can block change is disproven by the 2006 and 2008 results.  If "the rich" could block change, there would not be very much of it at any time.  The article is just another example of the "America is ungovernable" drumbeat.  We hear it whenever the Democrats have anything less than a veto-proof legislative capability, because partisan fart-catchers can't distinguish between "govern" and "transform".  Strangely, the obstructionist mechanisms are vital to democracy when the Republicans hold the initiative.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.
> 
> Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.



If there was any reason to believe that actually was happening, that there was in fact some pervasive voter fraud happening, then maybe this argument would hold some water. But as was discussed at length, no such fraud is occurring. I don't have an issue with some ID requirements being in place, but they must be designed so that they are easily obtained without cost.


----------



## GAP (17 Jul 2012)

Some of the stuff coming out of these guys mouths' just make you want to  :facepalm:

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
Published July 16, 2012
Article Link



President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Obama’s comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va., came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually -- part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has pledged a vote on the Obama plan before Congress’ August recess, but whether he has the votes remains unclear. A handful of Democrats – include several facing a tough re-election bid – don’t want to vote on a proposal that would result in a tax increase for some Americans.

Senate Democrats and Republicans wrangled Wednesday over the tax cut extensions, which have emerged as a major campaign issue as GOP candidate Mitt Romney attempts to upend Obama’s re-election bid.

Leaders of the GOP-controlled House want to extend the cuts for all Americans and will almost assuredly reject any plan capping them at the $250,000 income level, or $200,000 for individuals.

The cuts will expire in January.
end


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's facepalmworthy here? He's correct. They didn't build the infrastructure that they use. They didn't educate the workers that have become the human capital that is crucial to their success. Things like the Interstate Highway System, universal public education, the Internet, etc did not in fact materialize out of thin air nor were they products of the free market. They were things that the government had a key hand in, and they weren't free. Of course, there's also the fact that this clip is misrepresenting what he said. The "that" is referring to all that infrastructure, not to the businesses. That's a common technique that Fox is rather famous for. You may recall that a couple of years ago, President Obama discussed the importance of investing in civilian national security forces in addition to purely military organizations. He was, to any rational person, discussing the importance of funding police forces and the like. It was quickly spun by the tinfoil hat set into him wanting to raise some kind of army of his own (and other variations of the same nonsense.

See, what he *actually said* was this: 

OBAMA: Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.  You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn't get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 

*The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together*.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That's how we funded the GI Bill.  That's how we created the middle class.  That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That's how we invented the Internet.  That's how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea.  You're not on your own, we're in this together. (quote ends)

So, slightly misrepresented, no? I've highlighted one of the key points of the statement - about the importance individual initiative.

I had an interesting conversation with one of the Americans I work with about the ideals of rugged individualism as Americans see themselves, and the reality of how they actually act - it was rather prescient of this very situation.

Here's my suggestion to you: when you see something on Fox that makes you angry at President Obama, flip to snopes.com or mediamatters.org or politifact.org or factcheck.org and get the actual story. The reason they cannot be considered "news" is because they do not actually tell you the whole story, but what they want you to hear. This is a perfect example. And it's especially true if you heard it on Fox & Friends in particular.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/17/bolling-uses-foxs-deceptively-edited-obama-rema/187164

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/16/fox-amp-friends-deceptively-edits-obamas-commen/187146



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Some of the stuff coming out of these guys mouths' just make you want to  :facepalm:
> 
> Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
> Published July 16, 2012
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jul 2012)

Revisionist history at work:



> Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.




The internet wasn't "created", but rather evolved out of a series of government and private ventures starting back in the early days of computing, dating more than 50 years ago.

Here is a quick list of significant events.

By the way, "ARPANET" was the first "internet" of sorts.  And its purpose wasn't commercial or economic; rather, it was to safeguard information in the event of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union on the United States.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jul 2012)

I just won the internet.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I just won the internet.



If there's a prize for quotemining, you sure did.  :facepalm:


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If there's a prize for quotemining, you sure did.  :facepalm:


Thanks for that.

Anyway, if you knew the story of the Wright brothers, you would see the idiocy in Mr. Obama's assertion that "you didn't build that".  The Wrights, you see, were up against some pretty heavy hitters.  Contemporaries were also trying to be the first with powered flight.  Their rivals had heavy financing and "support"; however, the Wrights were first because of their own ingenuity and in spite of not receiving much in the way of external support.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> Anyway, if you knew the story of the Wright brothers, you would see the idiocy in Mr. Obama's assertion that "you didn't build that".  The Wrights, you see, were up against some pretty heavy hitters.  Contemporaries were also trying to be the first with powered flight.  Their rivals had heavy financing and "support"; however, the Wrights were first because of their own ingenuity and in spite of not receiving much in the way of external support.



If you read the post above, which actually puts "you didn't build that" in the proper (vice Fox News) context, you'd see that that has pretty much no relevance whatsoever to what the President said.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If you read the post above, which actually puts "you didn't build that" in the proper (vice Fox News) context, you'd see that that has pretty much no relevance whatsoever to what the President said.


I read the post above.  I don't even know where to begin with your post, so I'll just leave this here:








(subtext: I get it, no person is an island; however, his meme of "you aren't alone" is part of his socialist agenda.)


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I read the post above.  I don't even know where to begin with your post, so I'll just leave this here:
> 
> (subtext: I get it, no person is an island; however, his meme of "you aren't alone" is part of his socialist agenda.)



Name me a business that doesn't make any use whatsoever of infrastructure that exists because of government intervention. Name me a business that has not in some way benefited from public education. Name me a business that hasn't benefited from the provision of police, fire services, or national defence in some way no matter how remote.

And on top of that, FFS, he didn't say business owners didn't build their businesses. He said they didn't build those things listed above.

His message has nothing to do with this nonsensical rhetoric about "socialism", which is complete crap. It does, however, address the fact that the right's vilification of government as somehow useless and any sort of government activity as manifestly evil is patently wrong. And a good chunk of Americans believe that - and more might be rational enough to see it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Name me a business that doesn't make any use whatsoever of infrastructure that exists because of government intervention. Name me a business that has not in some way benefited from public education. Name me a business that hasn't benefited from the provision of police, fire services, or national defence in some way no matter how remote.
> 
> And on top of that, FFS, he didn't say business owners didn't build their businesses. He said they didn't build those things listed above.
> 
> And people wonder why I think people who get all their information from Faux are so friggin stupid?!



This is your last warning. I won't hesitate to ban you the next time. You've been warned enough about this.

You don't have the moral authority to make that implied judgement on anyone, whether here, or not.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2012)

I think we are taking the contest between a _lightweight_ (Obama) and an uncordinated _middleweight_ (Romney - who does have more of a résumé than Obama, even including Obama being president) _waaaay_ to seriously. Neither is likely to do what needs to be done ~ Obama will certainly fail, Romney most likely will. When America is is serious enough trouble the _heavyweights_ will re-enter the lists and, after sending the congress to the political woodshed, will sort the country out. It wont matter, I'm hoping, if the _heavweight_ is a Democrat or a Republican in 2016, she (I'm not counting Hillary Clinton) or he will be a centrist, a social moderate and an economic conservative ~ selected over the (many) dead bodies of the party bases.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This is your last warning. I won't hesitate to ban you the next time. You've been warned enough about this.
> 
> You don't have the moral authority to make that implied judgement on anyone, whether here, or not.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Very well. I'll make no statements to that effect. I will, however, continue to highlight the lies and distortions which emanate from that crap factory. I have the moral authority to do so.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I have the moral authority to do so.


 But having established yourself as the banner-waving "everything the left does is awesome," you have the exact same intellectual authority as the "everything Obama does is evil" camp.  :boring:

Both get ignored equally.

Just sayin'


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Very well. I'll make no statements to that effect. I will, however, continue to highlight the lies and distortions which emanate from that crap factory. I have the moral authority to do so.



Play whatever games you want, but you'll do it at your own peril.

There won't be any warning or explanation next time.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2012)

By strict rules of grammar, "that" would refer to "the business".  But from the full context of the paragraph as spoken/written, it should be understood to refer to "the infrastructure".

Government depends on taking a "squeeze" of the revenue generated by an active economy.  Infrastructure development is government investing in its own revenue stream.  It is a grave mistake to deprecate the risks undertaken and the achievements of entrepreneurs, or to imply they are the ones who should feel beholden.  I suppose there is a large segment of the private and public (especially the latter) work force that quails at the thought of striking out on their own.  For them to claim that business is the one receiving the piggyback ride and that entrepreneurs should be grateful is ridiculous.

Government should be grateful that there are people willing to risk capital and jump through all the hoops and red tape.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> By strict rules of grammar, "that" would refer to "the business".  But from the full context of the paragraph as spoken/written, it should be understood to refer to "the infrastructure".
> 
> Government depends on taking a "squeeze" of the revenue generated by an active economy.  Infrastructure development is government investing in its own revenue stream.  It is a grave mistake to deprecate the risks undertaken and the achievements of entrepreneurs, or to imply they are the ones who should feel beholden.  I suppose there is a large segment of the private and public (especially the latter) work force that quails at the thought of striking out on their own.  For them to claim that business is the one receiving the piggyback ride and that entrepreneurs should be grateful is ridiculous.
> 
> Government should be grateful that there are people willing to risk capital and jump through all the hoops and red tape.



Of course. that's what drives the economy. Societies accept that a system of government needs to exist to take that squeeze to pay for that infrastructure and anything else that society wants that is not provided efficiently by the market. It is those who are willing to take the initiative and risk  though that create wealth. They do, however, require things like infrastructure to do so, and the free market does not provide those things. That's why humans organized themselves with things like government.

The whole point is that no one ever said that business is a getting a piggyback ride. That's Fox ginning up a fake controversy based on selecting a specific extract from a much larger speech which solely highlights that in contrast to the efforts on the right to suggest that government is nothing but an impediment to everything, government does indeed have a role to play and that it's important make sure that it's focused on doing that job well.

The USA faces a massive (several billion dollar) deficit in infrastructure. It faces a need to reform its healthcare system. It faces a need to fix its budget mess. President Obama's decided to stump on the idea that it will take working together and everyone contributing to do so. That's what the speech was about. Nothing in there actually slammed businesses or entrepreneurs. It simply said that there's more to that. It's part of his campaign narrative that expecting people to pay in and work together is in fact what made America great. The fact that that is a message that will likely resonate with a large number of American voters who are seeing the impact of those things every single day is what terrifies the GOP, especially given that they're being somewhat effectively painted (whether true or not, but I have to admit to finding it true) as a party with no ideas except doubling down on what already hasn't worked and being more interested in protecting the interests of the wealthiest at the expense of the vast majority. Contrast that with what that speech actually said - that people who took risks succeeded because where it was necessary people worked together to help each other succeed. I cannot fathom for the life of me why an average working family would support the GOP, because the GOP will never, ever make them rich. At least, not with the policies they're peddling now.

It is to me the greatest evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of American conservatives that they cannot counter that message head on, and instead have to resort to quotemining like this, creating fake controversy, supporting (OPENLY!) disenfranchisement of their opponents, and using their vast media propaganda machine to support those efforts. Are some on the left guilty of that? Maybe, though I can't think of any contemporary examples. I can't think of times where left organizations have been caught "accidentally" distributing false information about voting dates, locations or procedures, but I can think of several cases on the right. I can't think of such egregious quotemining by the media that tends to support the Democrats. I have seen hysterical leftists simple go on about the right being manifestly evil, and they're as annoying and useless as most of the right who base their "arguments" on chain emails or things they heard on Fox or Limbaugh or wherever and couldn't be bothered to fact check.

It distresses me that money is what drives the electoral processes, not discussion of ideas. It irks me that polarization has gotten so severe that there's no prospect of working together, and that leadership of one party has said that getting their opponents defeated is to them more important than the interests of the nation. I do not for one second belief that that is what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America had in mind. And what really, really bothers me is that the same thing is starting to happen in Canada. I don't want this system to spill over our borders.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> It is to me the greatest evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of American conservatives that they cannot counter that message head on, and instead have to resort to quotemining like this, creating fake controversy, supporting (OPENLY!) disenfranchisement of their opponents, and using their vast media propaganda machine to support those efforts. Are some on the left guilty of that? Maybe, though I can't think of any contemporary examples. I can't think of times where left organizations have been caught "accidentally" distributing false information about voting dates, locations or procedures, but I can think of several cases on the right. I can't think of such egregious quotemining by the media that tends to support the Democrats. I have seen hysterical leftists simple go on about the right being manifestly evil, and they're as annoying and useless as most of the right who base their "arguments" on chain emails or things they heard on Fox or Limbaugh or wherever and couldn't be bothered to fact check.
> ...




There is, in fact, considerable discussion, on the _political right_, of ways and means to get America back on track ~ of course it's not on Fox News, US TV news is _infotainment_, not _information_; Fox is only marginally worse than the rest.

The Obama administration has been, is now, a _political_ failure; it is bereft of _practical_ ideas and appears, to me, to lack the guts to play real political hardball with a disgracefully partisan and obstructionist congress. I doubt a Romney administration will be much better, but I am about 99% certain it cannot be worse. The Obama campaign reflects its own fear of defeat and the Democrats' overall fear of change: the Democrats are reduced to mud slinging and fear mongering because they are out of ideas and they will not, perhaps cannot debate the ideas being offered by the loyal opposition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> It distresses me that money is what drives the electoral processes, not discussion of ideas. It irks me that polarization has gotten so severe that there's no prospect of working together, and that leadership of one party has said that getting their opponents defeated is to them more important than the interests of the nation. I do not for one second belief that that is what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America had in mind. And what really, really bothers me is that the same thing is starting to happen in Canada. I don't want this system to spill over our borders.




But it was Barack Obama who took the _money game_ to its current levels and it is Obama who is begging for more and more, driving the process even deeper into the cesspool.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But it was Barack Obama who took the _money game_ to its current levels and it is Obama who is begging for more and more, driving the process even deeper into the cesspool.



Barack Obama got Citizens United to become reality? I must have missed that.

I agree that his administration has been largely a failure - at least from the perspective of an outsider that expects more. They've been unable to play that hardball. They've been unable to capitalize on the paralysis of the Congress )which should have people rioting in the streets - they're paying for this nonsense!) 33 pointless "repeal Obamacare" votes?! THIRTY THREE?! Americans regardless of party affiliation should have their torches and pitchforks out.

I have to disagree about being bereft of ideas. There's certainly no silver bullets, but there's been some ideas. PPACA was a start at fixing one problem. The list of things President Obama has managed to do is widely available. Is it awe-inspiring? No.

What has been highlighted to me is that the system is rotten to the core, and the problems are beyond the ability of an administration to change, particularly when partisanship prevents any real progress. So I share, to a degree, the sentiment that Romney couldn't do much better. I do think he could do worse though, but I think his campaign is flailing badly enough that unless President Obama makes some significant real gaffe he's probably in a reasonably comfortable position.

Lots of discussions at my current workplace revolve around American politics and the mindset of many of the Americans I work with is very different than Canadians - it seems as though culturally they simply assume that government is incompetent and cannot possibly be competent enough to do anything right. That's what it's easy to argue against things like healthcare reform, and why people are easily misled by the aforementioned tripe. And why Newsertainment (or whatever you might choose to call it) works.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2012)

There is nothing especially wrong with the _system_ - it is not quite as good as ours, but it's not bad - what's wrong is the people _leading_, if we can use that term, and _manipulating_ it. And the lack of leadership, the failure of leadership starts with President Obama. Replace him and you can start to fix the rest.


----------



## Bass ackwards (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I cannot fathom for the life of me why an average working family would support the GOP, because the GOP will never, ever make them rich. At least, not with the policies they're peddling now.



It's not up to the GOP, or the Democrats, or anyone else who forms a government, to make anybody rich. 
What they need to be doing is the infrastructure thing; pave the roads, keeps the lights on, keep the Klingons at bay _and then get the hell out of the way so that people can have the opportunity to make themselves rich._

Conservatives -at least my brand of conservatives- don't have a problem with government. It's BIG -read intrusive- government that needs to go away.
My  :2c:


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2012)

:goodpost:

and +300 to you, sir for such a consise rendering of the point.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jul 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> What they need to be doing is the infrastructure thing; pave the roads, keeps the lights on, keep the Klingons at bay _and then get the hell out of the way so that people can have the opportunity to make themselves rich._




Typical pandering of the conservatives.  Not even a mention of the Romulan threat.  Probably bought off with Romulan Ale.

I want to know who's looking out for the Gorn menace.


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> It's not up to the GOP, or the Democrats, or anyone else who forms a government, to make anybody rich.
> What they need to be doing is the infrastructure thing; pave the roads, keeps the lights on, keep the Klingons at bay _and then get the hell out of the way so that people can have the opportunity to make themselves rich._
> 
> Conservatives -at least my brand of conservatives- don't have a problem with government. It's BIG -read intrusive- government that needs to go away.
> My  :2c:



Which is more or less the brand of conservative I was until they started going off the deep end on social issues (which is intrusive big government) and deciding that that was more important than those things we agree are important. When you look in particular at the sorry state of conservatives they look absolutely insane to me. 

As far as govt making people rich, what I was implying is that the GOP somehow persuades people to support policies that will in no way benefit them. I was in a lively debate about estate tax in the US with someone who was very passionately against the very idea until realizing they will not in any way affect him or the vast majority of Americans. I'm not a fan of them either especially (though proper estate planning mitigates them substantially anyhow) but when pressed on why it was such an issue he was basically unable to answer once he understood the whole picture.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2012)

It is a myth that a free market "does not provide those things".  An accurate statement is that free markets "do not always provide things in the quantity and at the cost desired by some people".

Obama's speech is not merely an homage to cooperation or the voice of a centrist asking all to come together.  Fit it into the big picture where it belongs: he wants enlarged government, with more power and responsibility.  Period.  If he doesn't get his way, then "he won" and he will go his own way.  The controversy is that the media will not highlight his authoritarianism.

The US has budget problems because it promised too many benefits to too many people, and spends too much money on matters that are not properly the responsibility of the federal government.  The advocates of more power and responsibility can not add that burden and then complain they do not have enough resources to discharge it.  They created the problem.

I can't think of a time when I have read so much written by so many Democrat supporters who are so blind to the lies, misrepresentations, strong-arm tactics, character assassinations, and out-of-context quotemining of their own "team" members.

Obama is a latter-day King James II.  Progressivism is his religion instead of Catholicism; he draws his advisers from academia rather than Gallican Catholicism.  Like James who sought to emulate Louis XIV, Obama seeks to emulate a rather French model of governance (authoritarian, with a slightly different flavour of nobility).  As during the time of James, the ideas of the favoured religion are to be promulgated and the voices of dissent are to be marginalized rather than debated.  Obama's gambit, like that of James, has sparked counter-revolution at several levels.  Obama, like James, does not enjoy sufficiently broad support and has overreached beyond what the people will generally tolerate.  I predict that Obama will fail and be cast aside, and there will be substantial transformation in the US - but at the hands of Republicans, not Democrats.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2012)

>I was in a lively debate about estate tax in the US with someone who was very passionately against the very idea until realizing they will not in any way affect him or the vast majority of Americans.

And that is what divides me from a great many people.  My operative measures for what is right do not include a simple calculation of whether my interests are advanced or degraded.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2012)

My sense, from the few months I spend each year in Texas, is that:

1. Most Americans are Bass ackwards style _conservatives_ - they know that government is necessary; they want it to do its job, which includes helping those in (real) need - or, at least, coordinating and facilitating (through the tax code) that help, but they do not want it to intrude too far into their lives or into the life of the nation; but

2. Most Americans are, also, disengaged - partially because they are sick and tired of Washington and partially because they do not understand, yet, that there is a crisis.

When they get engaged: WATCH OUT, Washington!


Edit: typo


----------



## Redeye (17 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It is a myth that a free market "does not provide those things".  An accurate statement is that free markets "do not always provide things in the quantity and at the cost desired by some people".



At a level that would be optimal for virtually anyone more like. I can't really think of a single significant infrastructure project anywhere that didn't take substantial government involvement because the free market failed to deliver. Major capital projects require enormous capital outlays with extremely long payback periods, which doesn't really entice capital that is in search of quick returns. Please, cite an example if you know of one. 



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Obama's speech is not merely an homage to cooperation or the voice of a centrist asking all to come together.  Fit it into the big picture where it belongs: he wants enlarged government, with more power and responsibility.  Period.  If he doesn't get his way, then "he won" and he will go his own way.  The controversy is that the media will not highlight his authoritarianism.



Despite the rhetorical appeal of this, I find it to be nonsense. An appeal to people to get to work on making the government work in the way it's supposed to has nothing to do with authoritarianism. The fact that he didn't want to take the hardball approach is pretty good evidence that he isn't authoritarian (so is the complete lack of anything he's done that is especially authoritarian, particularly in the context of other administrations). That's why the right's agitprop machine must constantly lie. 



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The US has budget problems because it promised too many benefits to too many people, and spends too much money on matters that are not properly the responsibility of the federal government.  The advocates of more power and responsibility can not add that burden and then complain they do not have enough resources to discharge it.  They created the problem.



Problem is, most of those things are either a) things the public wants or b) political kryptonite. The idea of replacing Medicare which a voucher system that will be rapidly eroded by inflation is about as palatable as slashing the defense budget, which is full of a ridiculous amount of waste and consumes IIRC 1/4 of the budget. Likewise, the idea of suggesting to people that if they want this stuff they'd better pony up doesn't seem to work there either. 



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can't think of a time when I have read so much written by so many Democrat supporters who are so blind to the lies, misrepresentations, strong-arm tactics, character assassinations, and out-of-context quotemining of their own "team" members.



How about some examples? I've not seen too many, which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but it happens on the Dem side nowhere near like it seems to on the right. What the left has is a bunch of blowhard whiners who have unrealistic ideas, and a bunch who freak out about "fascism" sounding as moronic as those who go on about "Marxism" on the right.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Obama is a latter-day King James II.  Progressivism is his religion instead of Catholicism; he draws his advisers from academia rather than Gallican Catholicism.  Like James who sought to emulate Louis XIV, Obama seeks to emulate a rather French model of governance (authoritarian, with a slightly different flavour of nobility).  As during the time of James, the ideas of the favoured religion are to be promulgated and the voices of dissent are to be marginalized rather than debated.  Obama's gambit, like that of James, has sparked counter-revolution at several levels.  Obama, like James, does not enjoy sufficiently broad support and has overreached beyond what the people will generally tolerate.  I predict that Obama will fail and be cast aside, and there will be substantial transformation in the US - but at the hands of Republicans, not Democrats.



 :facepalm: That's all I got for this. See, I'd ascribe most of those traits more to the right. You can see it emerging in Canada, look at the way scientists who want to question the wisdom of going full-bore at tar sands production have been marginalized. There is a chance that the Prime Minister is blowing political capital in the wrong places. Is it full bore authoritarianism? No. Does it make me watch politicians more, and will it influence how I vote next election? Absolutely. Will it broadly affect the public that don't really care generally? I don't know.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2012)

Redeye,

Just a health advisory from a concerned bystander.   You really should try to limit the number of times you belt yourself in the head each day.  Keep it up and you will knock yourself silly..........


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Interesting stats about just where the money is coming from during this election cycle.
> 
> It would be more interesting if it could explain where all of the money spent to support candidates, directly or indirectly, were exposed.
> 
> ...



Was listening to an interview on NPR while on the way to work this morning. The interview was with both  GOP and  Dem strategists responsible for ad buys and so forth during the past couple of elections. They both claimed that most (80% they said) of the money used for ad buys and so forth ends up being wasted as they have no way of really knowing the influence they have is a given area.

You know, if you are just going to throw it away, I'll take it. ;D


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And when bringing in requirements to present a government issued (or accepted) ID, you do not, at the same time, institute policies that make obtaining said ID more difficult to obtain.
> 
> Why not?  The more freely and easily available government-issued ID is, the easier it is to forge and the more worthless it is for the purposes for which it was created in the first place.



You haven't tried to get a state ID or driver's license post 9-11 have you.?

It makes some of the hoops for getting an abortion look like a pleasant day at the spa.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2012)

>Please, cite an example if you know of one.

Great Northern Railway.  More broadly, the industrial revolution.

Obama is not making appeals in order to get people working together.  He is trying to recast himself as "Mr Reasonable/Centrist".  If you desire evidence of his authoritarianism, look to how he acts to enlarge the powers of federal agencies, to minimize or deprecate congressional oversight, and to simply selectively enforce federal laws (not to use discretion on a case-by-case basis, but to broadly select those which will be enforced and those which will not).

The fact that much federal spending is politically difficult to touch does not change the responsibility of those who introduced the problems.  They caught it; they must pay the political price to clean it.  Obviously they would rather not, but their whinging should fall on deaf ears.

>How about some examples?

"Fake but accurate".  The media collectively running interference for John Edwards's affair, but going to disgusting lengths to assault Sarah Palin.  The broad attack on the "incivility" of the political right in the wake of the Giffords shooting.  A leave-no-document-unturned level of interest in Romney, but an unofficial embargo on finding/reporting anything Obama wishes to remain private.  Claims that the Republican House is doing nothing useful about the economic situation, when reality is that the initiatives are simply ones the Democrats are simply unwilling to advance, having run out of ideas except "raise taxes".

My point about King James II is that he sought to remake the basic fabric of his nation (particularly with regard to freedom of religion and expression) and in doing so set the conditions (will and opportunity) for an alternative vision to arise and transform the nation.  I find the parallels interesting.  That the Obama administration pursues analogues of the two main lines of operation of James (increased arrogation of power to the executive in lieu of absolute monarchism, pursuit of progressive ideology in lieu of Catholicism) is trivially obvious.


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

Romney is well intentioned, but has a hard time doing "off the cuff".

*A Hint for Romney*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/17/a-hint-for-romney.html



> There was a good impulse here:
> 
> Mitt Romney held up the waiters and waitresses serving donors at a fundraising event Monday night as examples of people who aren't doing well under President Obama.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

What does it say when John McCain selected Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney, because she was "the better candidate".

*McCain: Palin was 'better candidate' than Romney*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/mccain-i-wasnt-scared-off-by-romney-tax-returns-129201.html



> By MANU RAJU |
> 7/17/12 12:43 PM EDT
> 
> Mitt Romney's tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a "better candidate."
> ...



And McCain's response to the press seizing on the "better candidate" comment

*McCain irked by blowback over Palin remark*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/mccain-irked-by-blowback-over-palin-remark-129251.html



> By SEUNG MIN KIM and MANU RAJU |
> 7/17/12 4:57 PM EDT
> 
> Sen. John McCain was none too pleased by the uproar over his remarks Tuesday about why he chose Sarah Palin and not Mitt Romney as his running mate in 2008.
> ...


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

Ironic situation with the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises".

The villain's name is Bane. ;D

If it weren't for the fact that the character was created decades ago, I'd say Hollywood has a thing against Mitt Romney.


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

George W. Bush has finally made an endorsement of Mitt Romney on camera. It was a portion of an interview on several subjects, including the release of a new book which he cooperated on and provided an introduction / forward to.

The endorsement however, can be described as lukeward or half hearted at best.

Unfortunately, the video is not up on the web as of yet, but I will post it when it comes up.

"I support Mitt Romney, I hope he does well. But I think he can do well without me." :dunno:

Update:

Here is the link from The Hoover Institute's website. The interview is over an hour, but the key section is around 14:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RbAZj9RB94&feature=player_embedded#t=846s


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'd say Hollywood has a thing against Mitt Romney.



Hollywood has a thing against Republicans or anyone who isn't a Democrat. They've proved that time and time again, they're one of the biggest lobby groups since they get all that face time with the paparazzi  media.


----------



## cupper (17 Jul 2012)

And we've hit a new low.

Move On.org has now waded into the deep end. Tomorrow they will release in Ohio an attack add against Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns.

To invoke the ghost of Richard Nixon by calling him "Tricky Mitt" and having a photo of him morphing into a picture with Nixon with raised arms.

Stay classy my friends. :facepalm:

I'll post a link when they release it tomorrow, as it is not up on their youtube feed at this time.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Please, cite an example if you know of one.
> 
> Great Northern Railway.  More broadly, the industrial revolution.



GN is a good example, agreed. Notable because it's so incredibly rare. I didn't actually know that it didn't use land grants, thanks for pointing it out.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Obama is not making appeals in order to get people working together.  He is trying to recast himself as "Mr Reasonable/Centrist".  If you desire evidence of his authoritarianism, look to how he acts to enlarge the powers of federal agencies, to minimize or deprecate congressional oversight, and to simply selectively enforce federal laws (not to use discretion on a case-by-case basis, but to broadly select those which will be enforced and those which will not).



Not sure how that's recasting himself. That's pretty much how he's cast himself all along.

What enlargements of the powers of federal agencies are you speaking of, and to what extent are they solely his prerogative? Selective enforcement of federal laws?! What? I can only assume with some google fu that you're referring to immigration, because that's the most common thing that searches like that came up with.

So, have a look:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jul/01/fact-checking-immigration/

http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=immigration

Did President Obama overstep his boundaries? Apparently not. Did he order an end to deportation of young illegals because it was a waste of resources, in part it's suggested to force Congress to pass the DREAM Act (which was iniatiated by a Republican and supported by them until they decided to change their minds and obstruct any progress? Yes. But he didn't overstep anything. He didn't give them amnesty, he directed scarce resources be focused elsewhere, which is within his right. We do that in Canada - we don't deport certain people based on a variety of assessment factors. Going to start calling our government authoritarian for selectively enforcing the law?

Funny thing is, last I read, on President Obama's watch, more illegal aliens have been intercepted and deported than under previous administrations, so the hysterics that he hasn't done anything on the issue of immigration are just that. And the number of Border Patrol agents has increased steadily.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The fact that much federal spending is politically difficult to touch does not change the responsibility of those who introduced the problems.  They caught it; they must pay the political price to clean it.  Obviously they would rather not, but their whinging should fall on deaf ears.



Both parties are guilty.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Fake but accurate".  The media collectively running interference for John Edwards's affair, but going to disgusting lengths to assault Sarah Palin.  The broad attack on the "incivility" of the political right in the wake of the Giffords shooting.  A leave-no-document-unturned level of interest in Romney, but an unofficial embargo on finding/reporting anything Obama wishes to remain private.  Claims that the Republican House is doing nothing useful about the economic situation, when reality is that the initiatives are simply ones the Democrats are simply unwilling to advance, having run out of ideas except "raise taxes".



Palin was a terrible choice for VP, and she was skewered for her own words and actions. When Edwards' affair became news (which was after the campaign was over IIRC), the media hammered him and his party basically turned his back on him. They've given plenty of press to the sordid details. Romney's being asked reasonable questions, no one is on some kind of ridiculous witch hunt that President Obama went through over his birth certificate or anything else. Romney's the architect of his own misery, because he's refusing requests that a lot of people found reasonable. How he's being tried by the near-mythical "liberal media" is no different that President Obama is treated by the right's media. The claim that the Republican House has done nothing useful are reasonably accurate. They have voted to repeal Obamacare 33 times, each time knowing that the vote was meaningless because the Senate would not take up the vote. If they did, they've vote it down, and if somehow that didn't happen, the President would veto it. So yes, they've wasted a lot of the American people's time and money on spurious tasks. Their spineless, sobbing jellyfish of a speaker and out of touch leader may not have bright futures of the public is paying attention.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My point about King James II is that he sought to remake the basic fabric of his nation (particularly with regard to freedom of religion and expression) and in doing so set the conditions (will and opportunity) for an alternative vision to arise and transform the nation.  I find the parallels interesting.  That the Obama administration pursues analogues of the two main lines of operation of James (increased arrogation of power to the executive in lieu of absolute monarchism, pursuit of progressive ideology in lieu of Catholicism) is trivially obvious.



Not to me it isn't. Despite much excitement about "progressivism", I don't see that much of a major shift, particularly if you look at something like The New Deal by comparison as something that fundamentally changed American society. President Obama ain't FDR.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And we've hit a new low.
> 
> Move On.org has now waded into the deep end. Tomorrow they will release in Ohio an attack add against Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns.
> 
> ...



Ah moveon.org...  :facepalm:


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Jul 2012)

> Did he order an end to deportation of young illegals because it was a waste of resources, in part it's suggested to force Congress to pass the DREAM Act (which was iniatiated by a Republican and supported by them until they decided to change their minds and obstruct any progress? Yes. But he didn't overstep anything. He didn't give them amnesty, he directed scarce resources be focused elsewhere, which is within his right



I'm sorry this opinion piece isn't from Fox but I'm sure Mr. Sowell will be discounted by you just as easily... Before you ridicule him as a right wing crack pot or media hack, I'd like the readers to note :_"He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in Economics from the University of Chicago."_

Reproduced from this article: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/19/the_immigration_ploy

In part:



> President Obama's latest political ploy -- granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children -- is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems.
> Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his Executive Order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year's election.
> 
> People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama Executive Order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody's guess.
> ...


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Sowell is a smart guy, I don't often agree with him, but he's relatively correct. At least in explaining exactly what President Obama is trying to do - to force Congress to fix the system - to get on with the DREAM Act which had bipartisan support before obstructionism became the norm. Sowell highlights the games played on both sides of the aisle, and explains why such games are a problem. He's trying to push it as though it's something Obama invented, but I don't think that's accurate. When it comes to immigration, to taxes, etc, he's actually been trying to push the Congress to get on with things. Ending the Bush tax cuts so everyone will clearly know what tax rates, and fixing the immigration system are two of those problems he is trying to get them to sort out, are they not?


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Oh, on that selective enforcement thing, there's also this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/obama-bush-immigration-enforcement

Turns out what Obama is doing with immigration is nothing new.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Great article from Forbes of all places.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/

Rick Ungar basically lays out the reality of spending by the Obama Adminstration.

Even better, he's actively engaged in the comments section, and handily demolishes several conservative commenters attacking him by highlighting that he built the analysis from traditionally conservative sources.

I also love the jab at the Heritage Institute. Very well played.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Jul 2012)

> Turns out what Obama is doing with immigration is nothing new.



But he campaigned on "Hope and *Change*", remember? You talk about the hypocrisy of the right? Bush gets blamed for what's convenient; then when able, "Bush did it too" is trotted out.


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> But he campaigned on "Hope and *Change*", remember? You talk about the hypocrisy of the right? Bush gets blamed for what's convenient; then when able, "Bush did it too" is trotted out.



He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.


----------



## Haletown (18 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.



Yes he did.  He set a record for rounds of golf played.

Oh and adding staggering amounts of new, burdensome regulations to the  US economy.  13,000 pages just for the introductory level of Obamacare

And ridiculous deficits . . . Can you imagine the screaming if Harper had run deficits of $150 billion for three years?

This is still the skirmish stage of the campaign.  Romney isn't panicking and is probably having a good chuckle at the expense of all the pantywaist punditry advice.

Keep your powder dry and your sights on the target.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> He can't change everything himself. And he did change some things - probably not as much as he would have liked, but he's one guy, occupying one office in one function of government.



Really?  You *can't* be serious.

Nixon went to China 

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Carter got SALT 2.

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Reagen won the Cold War

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.

Clinton sorted shit out in the Balkans

Just one guy in one office in one function of government.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jul 2012)

To be fair, Technoviking, all of the examples you give fall within the realm of international relations, which is the purview of the executive without any need for domestic law making to come into play.

Nixon went to China? All he had to do is decide to do so, then set it up with the Chinese: all diplomacy.

Carter got SALT II? It was never ratified by congress as you know, and therefore never bound the USA (though both side did abide by it - again purely executive matter)

Etc. Etc.

None of these examples involve trying to get Congress to do what the President wishes to institute as internal reforms in the country. That record is a lot murkier for all the recent Presidents (say from Nixon on), save maybe for Reagan who was a little more successful than most in getting things trough.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To be fair, Technoviking, all of the examples you give fall within the realm of international relations, which is the purview of the executive without any need for domestic law making to come into play.
> 
> Nixon went to China? All he had to do is decide to do so, then set it up with the Chinese: all diplomacy.
> 
> ...



But that's my point.  Even though it's international relations, even Carter got shit done.  Mr. Obama has done what in his four years?  Internally or externally?  Or is it all Bush's fault?

(Interesting side note about SALT II, how the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan stopped the official ratification, but both sides abided by it, until 86 when Reagan accused the USSR of not abiding by it, and withdrew from it.  But he ended up winning the Cold War anyway, so....)


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2012)

[sarcasm]
Mr. Obama should maybe have a new slogan?  Instead of "Yes we can!"  it should perhaps be "No I couldn't...but it's not my fault!"

[/sarcasm]


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2012)

Just to show that I'm not here to throw my support for one side or the other, here is a bit of quote mining (aiming to win me the internets, as was previously suggested)







(Although the analogy in this one is a false one, the point is valid)


----------



## Redeye (18 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Yes he did.  He set a record for rounds of golf played.



 :facepalm: Not. Even. Close. That would be Woodrow Wilson. President Obama, even if he tries hard during his second term, isn't likely to catch up to Ike's record even. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/18/155279361/obamas-played-100-rounds-of-golf-which-presidents-beat-that (It cites Good Morning America, but you can also consult Van Natta, Don Jr. (2003), First Off the Tee: Presidential Hackers, Duffers, and Cheaters from Taft to Bush PublicAffairs

Even better, why it's totally, utterly irrelevant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-president-obamas-golf-habit-doesnt-matter/2012/06/18/gJQAzPYZlV_blog.html - Simply stated, no one who's likely to have an undecided vote cares, nor are they likely to.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> And ridiculous deficits . . . Can you imagine the screaming if Harper had run deficits of $150 billion for three years?



Maybe you should look at the link I posted above. Where was the screaming when Reagan caused the deficit to explode? Or Bush 43? President Obama's been reversing that trend. Read the link. Consult the sources. If you can counter, go ahead.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2012)

Examples of authoritarian/absolutism exercise of power in the executive branch.  Obama isn't selectively enforcing deportations to manage scarce resources; he is doing so to subvert the intended effects of congressional authority with which he disagrees.  It is insulting and impolite to pretend otherwise.

Republicans are not responsible for the spending liabilities engendered by the New Deal, Great Society, or PPACA.

Whether Palin is strong/weak material for VP is irrelevant to the depths of character assassination to which people stooped.  The discreditable behaviour is compounded by the way in which those attacks continued after the election because she was a popular figure to some on the political right.  I have never seen that level of vitriol directed against a Democratic presidential or vice presidential candidate.  And it is a fact that rumours of Edwards's behaviour surfaced during the 2008 campaign, and on balance of probability those rumours were at best ignored and at worst deliberately quashed until such time as the issue was moot.

Romney is not the target of "reasonable questions".  Romney is, like Obama, the target of a fishing expedition for embarrassing information (ie. how much money he makes, how much tax he successfully avoids).  And, again, it is difficult to give credence to any belief that Democratic candidates are subjected to a weight of inquiry equivalent to Republican candidates.  In view of the candidacy of Kerry in 2008, there is no reason anyone should be troubled by Romney, except that they are beset by the most egregious hypocrisy.

There has been no waste of time in Congress.  What is the non-time-wasting alternative which is not a slate of items drawn from the Democratic wish-list?  For those who think the House should submit to the agenda of the president or Senate, I have a counter-proposal of equal merit: the Senate and president submit to the agenda of the House.

People already know what the exact tax rates are.  People already know exactly where the Democrats and Republicans stand on whether or not to extend the current taxation regime.  The immigration issue is not sorted out because Democrats will not agree to "enforcement, then amnesty".  They consider naturalized illegals to be part of their voting bloc; they want a "permanent Democratic majority" and have no apparent ethical or moral qualms about how they obtain it; they will continue to advance "amnesty, then enforcement" schemes and continue to forget the second phase in the same way they have advocated "raise taxes, then cut spending" since Reagan's administration.  The Democrats are, regrettably, not to be trusted on these issues.

The editors entitled Unger's article incorrectly.  Unger's valid point is that the rate of increase of spending is not dramatic.  That is trivially meaningless: the rate of increase and the gross amount are two different things, and Obama has stood behind (and increased) the Bush-submitted levels of spending authorized (and increased) by a Democratic-controlled Congress.  US federal spending has jumped, and remains at high (and unsustainable) levels.  The administration has had several budgets to propose to rein in those high levels, but has not done so.  Ergo, the administration is overseeing the largest government spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars, as a percentage of GDP, per capita adjusted dollars, per capita percentage of GDP) with the exception of extraordinary (wartime - WWII) intervals.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2012)

>Reagan caused the deficit to explode? Or Bush 43? President Obama's been reversing that trend. Read the link. Consult the sources.

If by "the link" you mean Unger's article, it does not support a conclusion that "Obama has been reversing the trend for the deficit to explode".  Unger's article supports a conclusion that spending growth has not increased dramatically.  The deficit, however, is a measure of revenue/expenditure imbalance.  The deficit exploded due to the current recession and has remained at high levels.  Projections seem to agree the deficit should fall to something above 2008 levels for a few years from 2013 onward, but regrettably those levels are still much higher than the 2007 level.  The trend in the US deficit from about 2004 onward predicted a surplus in 2009 (which of course failed to materialize due to the recession).  That prompts the question: why?  The taxation levels of 2007 still apply.  When the recession ends, revenues should be restored.  So what has changed on the spending side of the equation to warrant such high deficit projections?


----------



## Haletown (18 Jul 2012)

The incredible shrinking deficit and under  President Obama.

   " The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history.

    The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government. The nation's deficit that year was $1.412 trillion.

    This year's deficit is slightly higher than fiscal year 2010, when the nation ran a $1.293 trillion deficit. Fiscal years run through Sept. 30. 

Obama will likely make it four in a row one year from now as his own budget shop is estimating a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012. 

The 2009 deficit still holds the record at $1.412 trillion.  In 2010 the deficit reached $1.293.  In just three years, more than $4 trillion of red ink has been added to the debt. The government's fiscal year ends September 30.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the largest nominal deficit ever recorded was $458 billion in 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration.  That is barely one-third of each of the Obama Administration's dubious deficit records.   

Barely a month into office back in 2009, the ever-confident Obama promised "to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office." 

That looks like yet another promise he won't be keeping. "

Because some people believe "President Obama's been reversing that trend".

Some people are also challenged by basic arithmetic.




http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/10/16/official_obama_owns_three_largest_deficits_ever


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2012)

The mask slips yet again. Brad has already detailed what the government's role and purpose in infrastructure is (and once again, a great deal of infrastructure spending simply takes of\ver what the private sector used to do, i.e. toll roads, railways, canals etc. since the late Middle Ages.) One thing which hasn't been raised as the legitimate role in State sponsored infrastructure is military use; the Roman roads were built to enable the passage of the Legions, and The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was explicitly designed for the quick transportation of military forces across the United States (mooted by the time the project was actually underway due to America's increasing commitments overseas, which demanded sea and airlift capabilities). I'm sure small business will be <sarc> extremely supportive</sarc> of this notion and flock to the Dems come November:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-obama-believes-success-is-a-gift-from-government/article/2502410



> *Barone: Obama believes success is a gift from government*
> July 17, 2012
> 
> President Barack Obama greets the crowd after a campaign stop at the historic Fire Station No.1, in downtown Roanoke, Virginia, Friday, July 13, 2012. Obama traveled to southwest Virginia to discuss choice in this election between two fundamentally different visions on how to grow the economy, create middle-class jobs and pay down the debt. (AP Photo/Don Petersen)
> ...


----------



## Redeye (19 Jul 2012)

Another article which extracts part of a speech from its context. I have a feeling that undecided voters will similarly not care.

What I'm most waiting for now is the debates. I have this feeling Romney is going to get crushed. 

To your point earlier Thuc, WHY the Interstate Highway System was built (and it wasn't solely for military use) is irrelevant. Completely, utterly irrelevant. It is one of the key pieces of infrastructure that allows the American economy to function.

And now, if you own a business, you didn't built that. Unless maybe you owned a paving business business in the 1950s, and the federal government paid you to. You didn't build it, but perhaps you took the initiative to start a business and that infrastructure is part of what made it succeed. Then you are what President Obama lauded in the rest of the speech, the part that media outlets aren't covering so much.

It saddens me that in an era when a ridiculous wealth of information is available literally anywhere anytime, including to me sitting with an iPad in a CHU in a third world country which has businesses that provide Internet access, that people can't be arsed to question what they read.


----------



## Redeye (19 Jul 2012)

Haletown, buds, read the article. the growth of spending has slowed. That's a start to fixing a problem that has existed for a long time and that President Obama did not create.

Brad - as I understand it, one thing that changed the numbers is the way that the Obama accounted for the wars he inherited. President Bush kept them off the books. So that inflated the deficit but actually allowed for more honest accounting. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/ among other sources discusses it.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> *It saddens me* that in an era when a ridiculous wealth of information is available literally anywhere anytime, including to me sitting with an iPad in a CHU in a third world country which has businesses that provide Internet access, that people can't be arsed to question what they read.








Now, in all honesty, consider when you said this:



> And now, if you own a business, you didn't built that.... but perhaps you took the initiative to start a business and that infrastructure is part of what made it succeed.



It's the blatant arrogance of the line of "you didn't build that" that gets people up in arms.  So, the person who put their life blood into a business is only _part_ of what made it succeed?  Really?  

So, here is a message, saying the same thing, perhaps, but with the emphasis on personal initiative that drives the economy:

"You put your own personal blood, sweat and tears into that business, selling widgets.  The risks were great, but thanks to your own personal drive, initiative, ingenuity and dream of a better world for you and your family, you succeeded.  

That's why we put so much into making sure that you have the best chances of success.  Roads.  Rail.  Transportation.  Energy.  All working quietly in the background, helping you make your dreams come true"


----------



## Haletown (19 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Haletown, buds, read the article. the growth of spending has slowed. That's a start to fixing a problem that has existed for a long time and that President Obama did not create.



Well now that is downright funny.  If massive increases in spending, paid for by stunning, historic levels of borrowing is the first step in "fixing the problem" then America is far worse off than anyone can imagine.

My gut feel says that Americans are getting more and more tired of Obama's speeches and lectures and there will be a blowout in November.


----------



## Redeye (19 Jul 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, in all honesty, consider when you said this:
> 
> It's the blatant arrogance of the line of "you didn't build that" that gets people up in arms.  So, the person who put their life blood into a business is only _part_ of what made it succeed?  Really?
> 
> ...



I like the wording, can't disagree that that's the same message better worded.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I like the wording, can't disagree that that's the same message better worded.



Thank you.  


I believe that it's not so much the message, but the manner in which it's delivered, and the emphasis that irked people.  That was my point.  And unfortunately for Mr. Obama, there are a multitude of "you didn't build that" memes being generated by these same people.  The important thing isn't what he said, but what people heard him say.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2012)

The reference was misplaced, but it doesn't really matter.  The Democrats have been trying to emphasize "you succeed because of government" for some time.  They are wrong, because they misunderstand the situation.  In the absence of infrastructure, people do not fail - they simply succeed differently.  Businesses were viable before the internet became a widely available tool for communicating, advertising, and sales.  Businesses were viable before the interstate highway system.  Does public investment in infrastructure make some things easier?  Of course.  But "expedites" <> "necessary".  Settlement and initial development precede infrastructure in almost all instance of human habitation.  Commerce is the precursor to infrastructure; taxation on commerce pays for infrastructure.  It is essentially capitalism: the reinvestment of capital in the means of production.  I am not sure people with Democratic "priors" (beliefs) understand this.

If the Obama adminstration was truly attached to its claims, it would not have misallocated so much money in 2009.  That failure compounds its misunderstanding of the relationship between private enterprise and government.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2012)

Key take away in this article is the "You didn't build that" quote will alienate something on the order of 20 million voters...And since there is ample video and audio evidence that this is indeed the quote, and adding it to scores of other statements and actions dating back to the "Spreading the Wealth around" moment with "Joe the Plumber" in the last election campaign, there is little doubt to what Mr Obama actually ment to say or to our understanding of what he was talking about:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/07/19/quote-me-as-saying-i-was-misquoted-2/



> *Quote Me as Saying I Was Misquoted*
> Posted By Ed Driscoll On July 19, 2012 @ 12:20 pm In Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal,God And Man At Dupont University,Liberal Fascism,Oh, That Liberal Media!,The Future and its Enemies,The Making of the President,The New Puritans | 2 Comments
> 
> “Obama Ad Accuses Romney of ‘Launching a False Attack’ for Quoting Obama,” Daniel Halper writes at the Weekly Standard:
> ...


----------



## Jed (19 Jul 2012)

This is an email circulating around that pretty obviously paints a biased picture of a right wing point of view.

I am interested in the the left side rebuttal of some of the statistics being used. (source unknown)



 Start of quote:

I know statistics are for losers, but some of these are quite interesting.

Certainly gives an indication of how demographically based Special Interest Groups can control the outcome of elections.


Scary Obituary 
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012 
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.           
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in 
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:            Obama: 19                McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by:       Obama: 580,000        McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens
of the country. 



Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low
income tenements and living off various forms of government
welfare..." 



Olson believes the  United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how

End of quote

much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our
freedom..


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2012)

I'll start: The first stat is completely wrong.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Number of States won by:            Obama: 19                McCain: 29



States where all electoral votes went to McCain = 21

States where all electoral votes went to Obama = 29

States where McCain took greater number of electoral votes when distributed by popular vote = 1

And before anyone points out that the total is 51, the District of Columbia has 3 electoral votes of it's own.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Square miles of land won by:       Obama: 580,000        McCain: 2,427,000



Second error, the total land area of the United States = 5,497,179 sq. mi. The creator of this e-mail is missing some significant land area. 



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Population of counties won by:    Obama: 127 million  McCain: 143 million



Error number 3, total population of US in 2008 = 305 million. What happened to the missing 35 million?

Since the first three facts were bogus, I'll just assume the rest are too.


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2012)

And my point for rebutting all of that:

Don't believe everything you read in your inbox.

http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp

And just for poops and giggles, I checked on Snopes, and it seems this same e-mail  was circulated after the 2000 election, with the names of Bush and Gore, instead of McCain and Obama. Which would explain some of the data errors.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## Jed (19 Jul 2012)

And just for added interest wrt Right vs Left; The Bush / Gore stats read match up like Obama / McCain. Go figure eh?


----------



## Redeye (20 Jul 2012)

My favourite rumour that Snopes has had to debunk is that they are some sort of liberal front. Funny enough, one of the principals is a registered Republican! I guess the rabid subset of the right that generates all the agitprop nonsense that gets circulated by email (and now Facebook) got sick of having Snopes debunking them and had to start attacking them.

They're pretty good for dealing with all manner of urban legends, rumours, myths, and so on.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> And my point for rebutting all of that:
> 
> Don't believe everything you read in your inbox.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jul 2012)

I love Snopes. I use it all the time to research dodgy claims.

The best part is- if they are unsure about something, they say so.


----------



## Redeye (20 Jul 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I love Snopes. I use it all the time to research dodgy claims.
> 
> The best part is- if they are unsure about something, they say so.



Exactly. They're brilliant for that. They started doing it as a hobby I guess, and they've got a wealth of information. It's interesting to see all the different types of stuff that get spread around by email. Good on them for helping to deal with it!

Pretty much the first place to go when you read something that makes you outraged!


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> My favourite rumour that Snopes has had to debunk is that they are some sort of liberal front. Funny enough, one of the principals is a registered Republican!



Funny enough.....Snopes says you're wrong.


> Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian  citizen and as such cannot vote in U.S. elections, register an affiliation with a U.S. political party, or donate to any U.S. political campaign or candidate. David Mikkelson is an American citizen whose participation in U.S. politics has never extended beyond periodically exercising his civic duty at the ballot box. As FactCheck confirmed in April 2009, David is a *registered independent* who has never donated to, or worked on behalf of, any political campaign or party. The Mikkelsons are wholly apolitical, vastly preferring their quiet scholarly lives in the company of their five cats to any political considerations.


 http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp



But I guess that's to be expected in a thread based more on mindless repetition of political dogma rather than.....oh, what's that expression that keeps cropping up here.......oh, I know -- "actually reading the articles."


----------



## Redeye (20 Jul 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Funny enough.....Snopes says you're wrong. http://www.snopes.com/info/aboutus.asp
> 
> 
> 
> But I guess that's to be expected in a thread based more on mindless repetition of political dogma rather than.....oh, what's that expression that keeps cropping up here.......oh, I know -- "actually reading the articles."



Mea culpa, I was writing what I thought I remembered from reading it quite a while ago and didn't go back to look it up again. I seemed to recall David was at one time a Republican. Oops.


----------



## Haletown (20 Jul 2012)

Brian Ross would probably claim he is a Tea Party member.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2012)

Deconstructing the "You didn't build that" speech. This will be a gold mine for GOP candidates all the way down line:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/18/the-ultimate-takedown-of-obamas-you-didnt-build-that-speech/?print=1



> *The Ultimate Takedown of Obama’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Speech*
> 
> Posted By Zombie On July 18, 2012 @ 10:15 am In Uncategorized | 194 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2012)

Use of Facebook and social media in the election. I can see this migrating rapidly to Canada (the Liberal Party has hired Democrat party election strategists in the past to learn the latest election techniques, so there is no reason to not expect this). I'm also sure that there will be some blowback from non engaged people finding their "friends" badgering them about voting. remember to check your privacy settings, or if you are into mischief, send false data their way:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428530/why-obama-likes-facebook/



> *Why Obama Likes Facebook*
> 
> The real power of the president's Facebook app: providing a window on supporters' friends.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2012)

Notwithstanding President Obama's use of social media in 2008 it, campaigning on social media, has one big drawback: those who use social media most vote least ~ and vice versa.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jul 2012)

Tell that to the Mayor of Calgary.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2012)

And tell this to Jewish voters. The disintegration of the Jewish support for the LPC is noted (and for most of the same factors). The roughes gallery of anti Semites has one serious error; they are not right wing at all (the name National Socialist German Worker's party is a dead giveaway of where _they_ stand, and the Klan was a Democrat Party organization):

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/07/20/lawrence-solomon-losing-the-anti-semite-card/



> Next: Jews for Romney.
> 
> Posted in: FP Comment  Tags: Democratic Party, Jews, Judaism, left, United States
> Lawrence Solomon
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jul 2012)

I like Ike.


----------



## cupper (23 Jul 2012)

Tippecanoe and Tyler too!


----------



## Redeye (24 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And tell this to Jewish voters. The disintegration of the Jewish support for the LPC is noted (and for most of the same factors). The roughes gallery of anti Semites has one serious error; they are not right wing at all (the name National Socialist German Worker's party is a dead giveaway of where _they_ stand, and the Klan was a Democrat Party organization):
> 
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/07/20/lawrence-solomon-losing-the-anti-semite-card/



 :facepalm:

Not that it's particularly relevant to the subject, but people still trot out this old canard?! Really? Does anyone actually believe this still (other than you, obviously)?

Remind me which political parties and groups were heavily persecuted by the Nazis in WW2 again? Social democrats, socialists, communists, trade unionists, and anyone else generally perceived as "the left".  Remind me who were purged on the Night Of The Long Knives? Those people who belong to the SA primarily, who actually had socialist leanings. Who funded the Nazis and helped them ascend to power? Conservatives and big business. Why? Because they benefited from Nazi policies like eradicating unions. Germany under the Nazis looked absolutely nothing like what socialists or social democrats advocate as a model for the state.

http://benatlas.com/2011/04/hitler-on-socialism-and-marxism/ is worth a very quick read.

More to the article, when did criticizing Israeli politics, particularly on the issue of relations with Palestinians, become anti-semitism?! That's complete nonsense. If it were true, I know quite a few anti-semitic Jews, and if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is. In my experience, Jewish people have a wide variety of political views and don't vote generally as a block. They certainly seem to have a wide variety of views about Israel, too.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2012)

An _Ad Hominem_ attack, several strawmen and totally avoiding the issue all in one response. Awesome job.


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Brian Ross would probably claim he is a Tea Party member.



I finally seen what you did there.  :facepalm:


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2012)

Seems that the GOP really does have an anti jobs agenda.

*Typo in House jobs bill leaves 'un' out of 'unemployment'*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78928.html



> A typo in the House’s latest jobs bill would freeze all major regulations until nearly everyone is out of a job.
> 
> A version of H.R. 4078 posted on the House Rules Committee website would put a freeze on significant regulatory actions until the “average of monthly employment rates for any quarter … is equal to or less than 6.0 percent.”
> 
> ...



BUSTED! ;D


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2012)

Finally, I won't have to listen to Mitt Romney's butchered version of "America the Beautiful".

*Obama to run ads pushing back on 'you didn't build that' (Updated)*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/obama-to-run-ads-pushing-back-on-you-didnt-build-that-129955.html



> President Obama, who's gotten a lot of strife from the Romney campaign and national Republicans in the last week for his "you didn't build that" comment, is launching a new swing-state TV ad to push back on the criticism.
> 
> Per the White House pool report this afternoon:
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (24 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Finally, I won't have to listen to Mitt Romney's butchered version of "America the Beautiful".
> 
> *Obama to run ads pushing back on 'you didn't build that' (Updated)*
> 
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/obama-to-run-ads-pushing-back-on-you-didnt-build-that-129955.html



Interesting . . . Doublling down on a big mistake  is a real gutsy move.

They'll be calling him "Mav" pretty soon.

Obama has resorted to going all negative all the time at a very early stage in the campaign.


Watch his positive:negative poll numbers to see if it works.

I doubt it will but he is a very skilled politician and he still has the MSM on his side at this point.

If his negatives skyrocket, all he will have left is the POTUS option of reacting to a foreign "crisis".

The Middle East could provide Obama a wonderful stay-the-course story.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Jul 2012)

SDA titles the video "I am not a Witch".


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jul 2012)

I am of the opinion that the earlier a campaign goes negative, the more trouble they're in. Today was the first Obama commercial that I've seen, and it was negative. One has to ask: why does it seem you have so little good to say about yourself, that you must concentrate on the negative in others?


----------



## Haletown (24 Jul 2012)

"I am not a witch". . . .   The original.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs&feature=youtube_gdata_player


There be some desperation in Obama's ad


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that the earlier a campaign goes negative, the more trouble they're in. Today was the first Obama commercial that I've seen, and it was negative. One has to ask: why does it seem you have so little good to say about yourself, that you must concentrate on the negative in others?



Geez Mike, where ya been? Both sides have been running really negative for the past month. And there were hints of negative off and on since Romney became the last man standing.

And it's only going to get worse. Count your blessings that you are in Canada. I have the unfortunate pleasure of living in a "swing state", so get to see them at every commercial break. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......... and over.

k:


----------



## Haletown (25 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Geez Mike, where ya been? Both sides have been running really negative for the past month. And there were hints of negative off and on since Romney became the last man standing.
> 
> And it's only going to get worse. Count your blessings that you are in Canada. I have the unfortunate pleasure of living in a "swing state", so get to see them at every commercial break. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......... and over.
> 
> k:




Fire up your PVR, stock up on some decent single malt . . . My current favorite is a Bowmore  Islay 12year with a lovely smokey peaty flavour and then just enjoy the whole campaign..

The PVR allows you to skip the  ads and the single malt gets you through the news.


----------



## Redeye (25 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An _Ad Hominem_ attack, several strawmen and totally avoiding the issue all in one response. Awesome job.



Well when you preface it with something so ridiculous, then it's hard to even pay much attention to anything else. The article, however, makes sweeping generalizations about Jewish political sentiments that I don't see backed with anything empirical. Are some Jewish voters unhappy with some of President Obama's first term? Perhaps. Are they going to vote against him in droves? I'm not sure. Does it, however, if one assumes the first statement to be somewhat true, make sense to make a point of highlighting the faults of the right as it relates to Jewish interests? Absolutely it does.

It is true that there were anti-semitic sentiments present in some of the Occupy mobs, but they're a fringe group and hardly can be construed as representing the interests of the Democratic Party. In cases where I've seen overt or subtle anti-semitism amongst them it's been coupled with a sentiment that the two parties are essentially the same and neither is worthy of support. The Democrats would do well to continue to marginalize those folks while pushing ahead with making clear that the GOP, especially the social conservatives amongst them, do not represent their interests.

I've never understood why Israel is such a big issue in American politics. It's labeled as America's "greatest ally" when it's done pretty much nothing that looks like that. It's a massive drain of US tax dollars (because massive amounts of foreign aid go to Israel, though most of it is really just subsidies to the defence industry), and it's treated as though it can do no wrong. Questioning Israel's approach to dealing with Palestinians gets automatically branded as "anti-semitism", even though large swathes of Israelis also don't agree with the current government there and the right wing's approach in general. It is rather than simply a disagreement over policy. Evangelicals in particular make a big deal over support for Israel. I don't see why Jews would be too happy about that - because their motives appear eschatology, focused on hastening the Second Coming, which doesn't really end well for Jews.


----------



## Redeye (25 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> My current favorite is a Bowmore  Islay 12year with a lovely smokey peaty flavour a



Well at least we can agree one something. I'm partial to Talisker as well. But I also like Dalwhinnie, a nice sweet highland, a great breakfast scotch.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Well at least we can agree one something. I'm partial to Talisker as well. But I also like Dalwhinnie, a nice sweet highland, a great breakfast scotch.



You must take some long breakfasts


----------



## Redeye (25 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You must take some long breakfasts



Wait, that's just me?


----------



## cupper (25 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Fire up your PVR, stock up on some decent single malt . . . My current favorite is a Bowmore  Islay 12year with a lovely smokey peaty flavour and then just enjoy the whole campaign..
> 
> The PVR allows you to skip the  ads and the single malt gets you through the news.



I will keep that in mind.


----------



## cupper (25 Jul 2012)

Bill Kristol thows a flag, and questions Romney's understanding of the job.

*Kristol questions Baker anecdote Romney reportedly told*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/kristol-questions-baker-anecdote-romney-reportedly-130034.html



> William Kristol, who has been more critical of the campaign Mitt Romney is waging of late after a pause, raises a flag on a report earlier this week that the GOP hopeful has told donors a story about President Reagan and his approach to anything other than the economy in his first 100 days in office, describing the WSJ-reported anecdote as a "false and foolish tale."
> 
> His overall argument echoes that of a number of foreign policy hands who believe Romney needs to broaden his message and policy prescriptions beyond the economy. And the column comes as Romney is heading overseas today for a major trip. I've emailed the campaign but haven't heard back. Romney's team, as Kristol notes, hasn't questioned publicly the WSJ's reporting.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (26 Jul 2012)

It looks like Mitt Romney has lost the high ground for criticizing Obama over leaks, while taking a dump on the real "special relationship"

*Mitt Romney broke MI6 silence, according to reports*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79036.html



> Mitt Romney made another gaffe on his London trip Thursday by acknowledging he met with the head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, according to reports.
> 
> Romney’s meeting with MI6 head Sir John Sawers was not on the Republican’s public schedule — and Romney made a major blunder by revealing it, CBS News and The Guardian reported.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (26 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Seems that the GOP really does have an anti jobs agenda.
> 
> *Typo in House jobs bill leaves 'un' out of 'unemployment'*
> 
> ...



Turns out that they even screwed up the correction.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79013.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2012)

>It looks like Mitt Romney has lost the high ground for criticizing Obama over leaks, while taking a dump on the real "special relationship"

And as the article spells out in excruciating detail, the leak was clearly not accidental.  Correct?


----------



## Haletown (27 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Turns out that they even screwed up the correction.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79013.html



Right back at ya . . .  Obama can't spell Americans

"An executive order signed by President Barack Obama left some scratching their heads over its implications and a misspelling of “America.”

Obama, with Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders looking on, signed the executive order on Thursday, which created a special new federal office aimed at improving education for African Americans. The order also created a panel to foster “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

The order, titled “White House Initiative On Educational Excellence,” said, “African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline and referrals to special education. African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation.”

In announcing the initiative, the White House’s social media team misspelled the word “Americans” in a Facebook post, according to the New York Daily News. “Earlier today, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Amerericans (sic),” the initial post said, according to the Daily News.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Misspelling, Questions Plague Obama Education Initiative
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!'


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-african-american-education/2012/07/27/id/446788


But he does know how to pronounce "Corpse man" because they are in all 57 States.


Now,  back to regular programming where President Obama's economic policies continue to devastate the American economy.


----------



## Haletown (28 Jul 2012)

President Obama's needs a bigger bus . . .

"Obama, in fact, has never won an important political contest without aid of a decisive financial advantage, and in all his contests, that advantage came from Jews. Take Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, who with her cousins runs the family empire (Hyatt Hotels and casinos, among other enterprises). “Without Penny Pritzker, it is unlikely that Barack Obama ever would have been elected to the United States Senate or the presidency,” The New York Times states matter-of-factly, adding that the Pritzkers and the Obamas became close friends as well as political allies, spending weekends together at her summer home. Thanks to Pritzker’s endorsement, her connections in the Democratic Party, and her ability to raise funds from her Jewish circle and beyond, an unlikely candidate named Barack Obama became Senator Obama in 2004. Thanks to an all-out fundraising push by Pritzker, national finance chairwoman of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Obama catapulted ahead of Clinton in early 2008 and of McCain in late 2008.



Then, almost immediately after Election Day, she discovered that her wealth and her businesses made her dispensable — she was, in effect, Obama’s first victim among what would become known as the 1%. Obama wouldn’t appoint her Commerce Secretary, as she had expected, because he didn’t want to be seen appointing a fat cat. Obama’s union friends, who long reviled her hotel chain as an exploiter of housekeeping staff, renewed their attacks with extra gusto and in a personal way after Obama became president — they had gone easy on her prior to Obama’s election, following 2007 phone calls in which he warned them that she would be heading his fundraising team. To add insult to injury, Obama also dropped her from his inner circle of friends.

Pritzker — and numerous others in the Jewish elite that she had enlisted to bankroll Obama — also recoiled at his vilification of the 1% and at his high-handed, even rude, treatment of Israel and its prime minister, whom he pointedly disrespected."

Well maybe just space under the bus . . .

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/07/27/lawrence-solomon-romneys-israel-card/


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jul 2012)

Election 'debates': making the Recruiting threads seem insightful.   ;D


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Election 'debates': making the Recruiting threads seem insightful.   ;D



*DO NOT!*

 >


----------



## Haletown (30 Jul 2012)

The quote.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that,"the buck stops here.'

Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better.” 

Who said it:

Mitt Romney, July 2012

Barack Obama  March 2006.


----------



## Redeye (30 Jul 2012)

That goes well with Dick Cheney pointing out how because of Ronald Reagan deficits don't matter anymore. Maybe that has something to do with why I assign zero credibility to so-called conservatives. And little more to anyone else.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2012)

Wanted:

A new campaign team for the Republican Party's presumptive nominee.

The gaffes in London were embarrassing, but manageable.

But the comments in Israel show either a lack of preparation of the candidate on the part of his team, or just plain ignorance on the part of the candidate himself.

Can he seriously say that the huge disparity in economic opportunities between Israel and the Palestinian Territories are the result of cultural differences between the two groups? At least could they get the statistics right?

How is it that with the large number of foreign policy pros from the Bush administration he can still trip over his own schmeckel.

Oy Vey. :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Wanted:
> 
> A new campaign team for the Republican Party's presumptive nominee.
> 
> ...




I was thinking something similar, but I watched him being interviewed one-on-one and now I'm guessing that his problem, not an uncommon one amongst smart people, is that his mouth moves faster than his memory. He knows the _answer_ and he wants to spit it out and he forgets the careful briefings by his handlers. I don't think he actually said anything *wrong* in either London or Jerusalem but, in both places, he said it without he necessary foresight (London) and _gloss_. He needs to take breath every so often and 'frame' his answers properly.

But, you're right, the Democrats gained a whole hockey sock full of ammunition from this trip.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jul 2012)

Thanks to the in the pocket of President Obama media who dissect ever word to blow up out of proportion.  Romney is not JC (if you are a Christian) like President Obama.


----------



## Haletown (30 Jul 2012)

Can he seriously say that the huge disparity in economic opportunities between Israel and the Palestinian Territories are the result of cultural differences between the two groups? 

Yes, he can.  Truth is true.


Comparing a democratic modern state like Israel to the Thugocracy of any form of contemporary Palestinian government or state is beyond comprehension.

If it is the PLO, Hamas or Hisbollah . . .  Makes no difference. They are all mass murders who prey on their own people, who murder innocent Israelis without remorse and are, despite the passage of time, just the remnants of an Arab military occupation that his lingered on Jewish lands for many too many centuries.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2012)

Culture has everything to do with it. This can be seen by doing comparisons across the ages, the more individual freedom the culture allowed, the better the end results. The ancient Athenians were had greater freedom than the Spartans or their Persian paymasters, despite the huge disparity in resources and even after losing the flower of their army and fleet it still took Sparta and her Allies almost a decade to subdue the Athenians.

The _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ had only a fraction of the population or resources of the Ottoman Empire, but was still quite competitive in most respects for over two centuries. Elizabethan England had a similar mismatch in population and resources to Hapsburg Spain, yet still rose to become a prominent European power and laid the foundations for a global Empire.

The Asian "Tiger" economies have virtually no natural resources and a fraction of the population of China, yet are in many ways the equals of the "Dragon".

Russia is and has always been blessed with a wealth of resources; human, agricultural, mineral and energy resources, yet is far poorer than either Europe or America.

This is a hard truth for people who believe in multiculturalism, or otherwise believe in equality of outcomes, but the evidence is pretty consistent across human experience. Governor Romney should be congratulated for being able to state a self evident truth and ignoring "Political Correctness".


----------



## Redeye (31 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Can he seriously say that the huge disparity in economic opportunities between Israel and the Palestinian Territories are the result of cultural differences between the two groups?
> 
> Yes, he can.  Truth is true.
> 
> ...



There is literally so much stupidity in this post I don't know where to start. The Palestinians democratically elect their leaders as well, I always find it rich when the west trumpets democracy, then gets all upset when the results aren't what we want. I have to wonder if 2012 Election presumptive silver medalist Romney knows about the blockade on the Palestinian Territories, and its impact on the economy. Wonder how much disparity would exist without that? Some surely as their are also educational disparities, but those would potentially close rapidly.

The Israelis do their fair share of murdering innocent people, and the way they treat the Palestinians is revolting. I seem to remember someone saying something about "as ye sow, so shall ye reap", so I have very little sympathy for Israelis who don't support moving on with a two state solution and think that keeping boots on the necks of people who have the audacity to want to live on land that has been theirs for centuries before some foreign interlopers showed up is a good idea. I don't get why pandering to Israel is such a feature of American politics easier, it seems just ridiculous.

"Lingered on Jewish land for centuries"? Land that Jewish people by and large quit long ago? So when American Indians decide they want to reclaim land that was historically theirs and find a large, heavily armed thug to support them, that will be palatable to you? It's not a perfect equivalent, but there's parallels.

All that aside, it seems like Mitt's foray into tourism is good for comedians and President Obama's re-election campaign at least.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Jul 2012)

"Democracy" includes a large number of principles, institutions, and practices beyond periodic elections.  Lots of countries hold elections; some of them are not truly "democratic".

The Palestinian objective is not a two-state solution or to share one nation amicably with Israelis.  Forgive me for not forgetting any of the context of the past 100+ years.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2012)

Typical Redeye post:



> There is literally so much stupidity in this post I don't know where to start. The Palestinians democratically elect their leaders as well, I always find it rich when the west trumpets democracy, then gets all upset when the results aren't what we want. I have to wonder if 2012 Election presumptive silver medalist Romney knows about the blockade on the Palestinian Territories, and its impact on the economy. Wonder how much disparity would exist without that? Some surely as their are also educational disparities, but those would potentially close rapidly.
> 
> The Israelis do their fair share of murdering innocent people, and the way they treat the Palestinians is revolting. I seem to remember someone saying something about "as ye sow, so shall ye reap", so I have very little sympathy for Israelis who don't support moving on with a two state solution and think that keeping boots on the necks of people who have the audacity to want to live on land that has been theirs for centuries before some foreign interlopers showed up is a good idea. I don't get why pandering to Israel is such a feature of American politics easier, it seems just ridiculous.
> 
> ...



Redeye, I am confused. You should post all your comments at either:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106463.25.html

*Topic: Why is genius so rare?* 

or

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76543.3100.html

*Topic: What's the dumbest thing you heard said today?*


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2012)

Disagree with Redeye as much as you want, but keep the personal attacks out of it....refute with facts and figures, not personal attacks. 

Remember he be believes in his argument as much as you do yours....


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jul 2012)

I was attempting to be humorous, which obviously rushed by you.

Personal attacks? I do not blatantly say posts by others are "stupid" etc even to Redeye with whom I have spared a bit previously. In fact since Redeye  deployed I have not commented once on his posts ( with this one exception). But wait till he returns safely!


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2012)

:rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Disagree with Redeye as much as you want, but keep the personal attacks out of it....refute with facts and figures, not personal attacks.
> 
> Remember he be believes in his argument as much as you do yours....



What Redeye can do is learn to rebutt without the invictive venom of calling another's post stupid and all the other insults to a person's thoughts, opinions and styles.

We don't care whether he agrees or not, it's not an excuse to throw civility out the door.

He's fooling no one by attacking the content and not the poster personaly, which he is doing. Calling the poster's view stupid is calling the poster stupid.

Redeye is on the ramp for his constant abuse, in this regard. He wants to push and find that edge while not crossing it. He may get a suprise and find he's closer than he thinks.

When he falls off, it'll be non negotiable. He won't be back.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2012)

Have we all forgotten or just conveniently overlooked the fact that Israel has complete (or at least they'd like to think they do) access into and out of the occupied territories. Which pretty much allows Israel to dictate what happens with the the economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza.

That is essentially how a siege is supposed to work, is it not?

Culture has SFA to do with the disparity between the two entities.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2012)

Cupper have you thought about taking up residence in a country that better reflects your values ?


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2012)

Lets try to wrap this up so we can get back to bashing political parties and candidates.

WRT culture, lets normalize for things like oil, OPEC etc and compare Israel to places like Syria, Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967. The Arab nations can fill in for the Palestinians, even though the real Palestinians were (and still are) kept in concentration refugee camps and used as political pawns by the Arabs.

Of that group Israel grew farther and faster in almost every metric that you could name (and since we are using 1967 as the end point you cannot make any reference to the West Bank, Sinai or Gaza strip), evolving into a modern in dustreal economy during that time period. The various Arab nations (the ones without access to large amounts of oil) changed their political structures once or several times, but in the end, the shuffling of the deck simply reaffirmed the "traditional" patterns of fragmented polities beset by tribal, sectarian and/or religious divisions, just dressing it up with different parties or rulers in power, and economically backwaters.

As a bit of a checksum, Lebanon had a much different culture based on the (then) Maronite Christian community's demographic primacy, and Beruit was once known as one of the great tourist destinations, being clean, fun and cosmopolitan. Lebanon also had a vibrant economy in this period. Since the Maronite Christian population has been demographically displaced over the decades by larger Muslim populations, the culture has also changed (and by force, for the most part), with Beruit no longer being the tourist destination that it once was...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2012)

New ad by Governor Romney's team. Takes the "You didn't build that" line and throws it right back in the Dem's face. President Clinton's endorsement at the beginning should also be making a lot of heads explode over at the Obama campaign HQ:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/31/new-rncromney-ad-believe-in-the-america-you-built/



> *New RNC/Romney ad: Believe in the America you built*
> posted at 2:01 pm on July 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> How effective is the new ad from the RNC for Mitt Romney?  Effective enough that the Washington Post describes it as “warm,” “personal,” and “down-to-earth.”  The minute-long spot features Romney speaking of his personal experiences in business, as governor, and as the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.  It’s an overwhelmingly positive ad, but one with a big bite at the end:
> ...


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cupper have you thought about taking up residence in a country that better reflects your values ?



Any suggestions?


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Aug 2012)

You seem unhappy.Complain about the US on the web or move on to someplace you would be comfortable with. You are free to move or free to complain.Thats the nice thing about living in Canada or the US. I did notice that Putin has been rather heavy handed with his critics. 







A participant shouts as he is detained by police during a protest to defend Article 31 of the Russian constitution in St. Petersburg July 31, 2012. Activists gather on the 31st day of the month to support Article 31 of the Russian constitution -- the right to free assembly.






Maria Alyokhina, a member of female punk band "Pussy Riot", smiles as she is escorted by police to a court in Moscow July 31, 2012. The trial of three members of a Russian female punk band continued on Tuesday, as they face up to seven years in jail for protesting against Vladimir Putin inside a Moscow cathedral, a prosecution they said was aimed at spreading fear and silencing dissent.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2012)

I must adopt a position of devil's advocate.

While "stupid" stirs a lot of emotion, it is entirely reasonable to accuse an argument, conclusion, idea, etc of being foolish, stupid, ill-conceived, immature, idiotic, etc, without imputing or accusing the person espousing the idea of being so.  We can - and often do - hold a discreditable or unreasonable or curious opinion for reasons other than a pure synthesis of Vulcan logic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Aug 2012)

Let's stay on topic folks.

The thread is about the 2012 election.

Not Israel, not where people should move to and not perceived posting vernacular.

It's about the election.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Redeye (1 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What Redeye can do is learn to rebutt without the invictive venom of calling another's post stupid and all the other insults to a person's thoughts, opinions and styles.
> 
> We don't care whether he agrees or not, it's not an excuse to throw civility out the door.
> 
> ...



With due respect, I said nothing about the poster, but what he posted, which was... Well, I can't describe it. I accept his right to a different point of view, but that doesn't mean that when they post stuff that is outrageous it can't be answered. Haletown, if I offended you, I apologize, it was the ideas you posted where what I had to respond to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> With due respect, I said nothing about the poster, but what he posted, which was... Well, I can't describe it. I accept his right to a different point of view, but that doesn't mean that when they post stuff that is outrageous it can't be answered. Haletown, if I offended you, I apologize, it was the ideas you posted where what I had to respond to.



Answer the outrageous.

Keep your judgments and comments of someone else's opinions to yourself.

Move on. This chapter is closed.

2012 election please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Haletown (1 Aug 2012)

Interesting site . . . 

http://rove.com/election

OK it is Rove so the dialogue reflects his politics.

But the data is the data and the resulting map is the map.

Looks like it is all in the swing states.


----------



## Haletown (1 Aug 2012)

I have noticed a lot of US TV advertising for back to school stuff and that tells me people are moving their thinking past summer and things of summer to the Fall.

Then the new Gallup data comes out

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156389/Thirteen-States-Give-Obama-Majority-Approval.aspx?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=gallupnews&utm_campaign=syndication

And it shows a slipping Obama.

Could this be the beginning of the end for Obama?  He seems to have very little room to grow and as the elections grows closer, people focus more closely on important things, like their economic future, rather than "cool" stuff or how much they like somebody.

My gut feeling is he will be routed in November.  He'll hold his core vote, but his policies have failed on so many levels and so many Americans are hurting or know people who are hurting.

Despite what I sense is an honest desire in the large majority of Americans for the first black POTUS to do well, they will not vote to give him four more years to continue his economic, fiscal, industrial, social and foreign policies because Americans see so much failure in  his first term.

I still think it will be an exceptionally nasty campaign.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2012)

A look at how Team Obama intends to campaign by the WSJ. The idea of "shrinking the electorate" is a bit counterintuative considering the amount of time, effort and energy spent over the last many election cycles in developing and refining "GOTV" strategies and tactics, but then again, if the Administration is attempting to define themselves now (as the article suggests) and there are so few accomplishments to point to (especially with the economy) then attempting to turn off potential voters and keeping them at home may be the best possible COA for them:

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444226904577560941016294050.html



> *Jenkins: Is Obama Beating Himself?*
> For some reason President Obama has us thinking of Marissa Mayer, Bill Ackman and Mark Zuckerberg.
> 
> "You didn't build that," Mr. Obama explained to the nation's entrepreneurs, and has been explaining ever since. He only meant to say we need government as well as private initiative, and who could disagree? This argument is anodyne, dispositive of nothing that is in dispute.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2012)

The problem for Romney is that he has lots of negatives; Obama's team doesn't need to invent them. His campaign, to date, has been decidedly less than stellar, but there's still time - the really important time: Sep and Oct.

The problem for Obama is the economy; it's 'his,' now, and he needs it to turn around, dramatically, in Sep and Oct; the odds of that happening are slim, even if Ben Bernanke, apolitically, rides to the rescue with QE3. The Federal Open Market Committee, in Jun 12, expected that _"economic growth_ [will] _remain moderate over coming quarters and then to pick up very gradually,”_ and it anticipated _"that the unemployment rate will decline only slowly toward levels that it judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Furthermore, strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook.”_ That's not what Obama needs and while QE3 might steady the markets and lessen the impact of the ongoing Eurozone fiasco it is unlikely to do what Obama needs done ...


----------



## Haletown (1 Aug 2012)

If it comes down to a popularity contest, Obama takes it in a walk.  He's a cool dude, he talks & walks just right, he hangs with the Hollywood, TV & sports celebs and  has a dazzling smile.  He could have been a big deal in Hollywood.

If the election was held in "regular times" Obama's cool would win over Romney's odd.  When people are fat & happy, when they are not worried about feeding their families or the debt they are leaving their children, then "cool" wins.

But the times are far from fat & happy, voters are very worried and out of self interest, people will likely vote for competence over cool.  Romney has competence in spades.


This election will be for the soul of America and the two visions will offer marked policy choices for America to consider, all based on the size and role of government in American's lives.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2012)

Romney has one big challenge in addressing folks outside the 1%: He's never spoken to the question of why he has moved money offshore, to a variety nations with less than transparent banking laws.  Coupled with his refusal to release his taxes for more than the past two years (where his father set a precedent) it gives an impression, justified or not, that something is being hidden.

That impression will harm him with people whose votes he needs to win.  Even the returns he released, showing a marginal rate around 15%, will not win over many, if they compare the rate they pay to what Romney paid.


----------



## Haletown (1 Aug 2012)

Considering he is virtually tied with Obama, his appeal is already well outside the 1% you say is his vote.

The democrats will make a big issue out of this.  No doubt.  They have  already started.  It will certainly work with people who are already voting for Obama, it may backfire with a lot of other Americans who respect personal privacy.

If I was Romney, I would wait until the debate, goad Obama a bit and then when he demands Romney   release his returns, demand that Obama release his school records. And his medical records.  

Maybe he hasn't quit smoking after all


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You seem unhappy.Complain about the US on the web or move on to someplace you would be comfortable with. You are free to move or free to complain.Thats the nice thing about living in Canada or the US. I did notice that Putin has been rather heavy handed with his critics.



You lost me. But as Recceguy says, let's just move on.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2012)

Just because they are in a dead heat doesn't necessarily mean his message has gotten across outside the core base, and/or the 1%.

Polls, for whatever they are worth, have been swinging wildly back and forth, depending on who is doing the polling, what the questions asked are, and the breakdown of the people polled.

For example, as people pointed out earlier, Obama would win hands down if it was decided on who is more likeable. A recent poll released shows that Romney is just not giving people a warm fuzzy feeling. And the breakdown in swing states is worse than the general population.

And it seems to be due to the poor work by his campaign to seize the high ground and define their man, and let people get to know him, and feel like he understand and cares about their issues. Right from the start, the Obama camp has done everything to define Mitt Romney, and it seems to be working.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Aug 2012)

This is a pocket book election. The voter can be asked if he is better off today then he was 4 years ago. I suspect that most people feel that they were better off then. If enough people feel that way the President will have plenty of time for his golf game.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2012)

More grist for the culture determines economic success comment by Romney. (respecting Recceguy's directive - without the Israel / Palestine debate)

You would think that someone with Romney's background would believe that economic policies drove national prosperity. It is almost as if he's buying into their out-of-context quote from Obama "You didn't build that".

*Capitalism, not culture, drives economies*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-capitalism-not-culture-drives-economies/2012/08/01/gJQAKtH9PX_story.html



> Mitt Romney has explained that his comments abroad were simply truth-telling. “I tend to tell people what I actually believe,” he said. With regard to one much-debated comment — on the cultural differences between Israelis and Palestinians — many agree with him. The Wall Street Journal editorial page and columnists including Marc A. Thiessen and John Podhoretz all applauded. Podhoretz wrote: “Anyone who publicizes his remark is helping Romney win the election.”
> 
> “Culture makes all the difference,” Romney said at a fundraiser in Israel, comparing the country’s economic vitality to Palestinian poverty. Certainly there is a pedigree for this idea. Romney cited David Landes, an economics historian. He could have cited Max Weber, the great German scholar who first made this claim 100 years ago in his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” which argued that Protestant values were the most important fuel for economic progress.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2012)

More Bat Doody Insanity from the extreme right conspiracy wing. Break out your tin foil hats and raise a glass in salute!

*TN Rep. Kelly Keisling forwards Obama fake assassination rumor*

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2012/state-rep-kelly-keisling-forwards-obama-october-surprise-rumor-ignites-firestorm/



> State Rep. Kelly Keisling, a first-term lawmaker from Byrdstown, passed along a conspiracy theory email to constituents this week and rapidly reaped the sort of political firestorm that only the Internet can deliver.
> 
> Through an aide using his email account at the state legislature, Keisling shared an online article that alleges President Barack Obama is planning to fake his assassination as part of a plan to impose martial law. Sketchy theories like this abound in the days before a presidential election, but Keisling apparently took it seriously enough to sound the alarm.
> 
> ...



Two thoughts come to mind.

1) You really can't make this stuff, although you can give it the old college try, and

2) Blame Canada!


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Polls, for whatever they are worth, have been swinging wildly back and forth, depending on who is doing the polling, what the questions asked are, and the breakdown of the people polled.



And to further my point,

*Swing state poll: Romney still struggling to convince voters he cares*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/swing-state-poll-romney-still-struggling-to-convince-voters-he-cares/2012/08/01/gJQAjKoAPX_story.html



> Mitt Romney started this campaign with a problem: an image as a wealthy elitist, out of touch with middle-class life.
> 
> New polls out Wednesday show that — even now, after months of campaigning and an expensive effort to introduce himself to voters — Romney still hasn’t overcome that first impression.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2012)

Although this might be put in "Let them fail", it is appropriate here since it bound so closely to the Obama election campaign. Looking at the numbers, this is a horrifying failure, and I can certainly see this being raised as an issue if the Obama campaign continues with the 1% and Bain capital stuff. Real numbers are much harder to evade, and whle the Legacy media won't ask the hard questions, these numbers are getting into circulation through the power of the Internet and blogosphere. Voters are taking notice (and as T6 reminded us, this is a pocketbook election):

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/31/What-GM-Turnaround-GM-Obama-Admin-Have-Over-Promised-and-Under-Delivered



> *OBAMA TOUTS GM AS SUCCESS WHILE MARKET SHARE, STOCK PRICE DECLINE*
> 
> by TONY LEE  31 Jul 2012 75 POST A COMMENT
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2012)

Explain this then.

*Chrysler uses strong presence in US to notch $436M second-quarter profit*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chrysler-uses-strong-presence-in-us-to-notch-436m-second-quarter-profit/2012/07/30/gJQARJheKX_story.html



> DETROIT — Chrysler rode big sales increases in the U.S. to a $436 million profit in the second quarter.
> 
> A year earlier, the company lost $370 million, mainly because it refinanced government bailout loans
> 
> ...



And This:

*GM Earnings Fall On European Losses*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/05/03/gm-earnings-fall-on-european-losses/



> General Motors today reported first-quarter net income of $1 billion, down from $3.2 billion in the same period a year ago, as strong profits in a recovering North American market were offset by losses in Europe and lower earnings elsewhere in the world.
> 
> *GM’s post-bankruptcy financial performance in North America continues to impress, despite its lowest market share in decades. GM’s earnings before interest and taxes in the region were $1.7 billion, up $400 million from a year ago, even though its North American market share slid to 16.7 percent. By successfully matching factory production to consumer demand, GM was able to avoid heavy discounts that can sap profits.*
> 
> ...



Meanwhile Ford (which didn't get / need a bailout) is bleeding.

*Ford Q1 Earnings Tumble
Maker blames higher taxes, lower European, Chinese sales.*

http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/04/ford-q1-earnings-tumble/



> Ford Motor Co. saw its first quarter net income plunged 45% compared to a year ago to $1.4 billion, or 35 cents a share, the maker blaming higher taxes and lower European and Chinese sales for the sharp slide. But North American results were their best in over a decade.
> 
> The maker meanwhile announced plans to offer lump-sum buyouts to as many as 90,000 of its former employees, especially white-collar workers, in a bid to reduce its pension costs.
> 
> It’s unclear whether the weak first quarter will impact Ford’s efforts to improve its credit rating.  The maker received a significant boost from Fitch Ratings, earlier this week, which returned the maker to investment grade.  But other agencies, including Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s have yet to weigh in.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2012)

The lack of car sales is a negative economic  indicator.When times are good people buy cars. When they arent they try to keep their older car running. Neighbors whose kids have graduated college cannot find jobs. Unfortunately the administration is more about regulating business into the ground as opposed to lessen regulations to foster economic growth. The President's policies have seen a record growth in the social security disability rolls to over 8m people. There are more people on food stamps. Yet the so called stimulus to encourage shovel ready jobs never happened. The government would have been better off giving everyone $100,000. Mortgages could have been paid off or other personal debt.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2012)

The ultimate explanation has already been posted upthread; GM stock is down 2/3 from where it was when they received the bailout.

"Channel stuffing" (i.e. reporting cars in inventory as "sold") and other clever accounting tricks only go so far, the market "knows" and has already discounted for these effects. Attempting to draw attention to GM's performance will always run into the valuation issue, which contradicts the "narrative" of success. This is why anyone in the Obama reelection team should be very wary of pointing to GM.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2012)

More on wildly variable election models. Since this is a pocketbook election, there is probably some validity to the model. I'm not sure how the war tracking thing is going, anti war hysteria simply vanished from the Legacy media after 2008, even though the levels of combat and casualties continued at roughly the same pace:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/economic-forecasting-model-predicts-obama-will-lose-in-near-landslide/



> *Economic forecasting model predicts Obama will lose in near-landslide*
> James Pethokoukis | August 2, 2012, 9:16 am
> 
> Political scientist Douglas Hibbs looks at two factors when forecasting presidential elections: a) per capita real disposable personal income over the incumbent president’s term, and b) cumulative U.S. military fatalities in overseas conflicts.
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2012)

I prefer the tried and true method, reading the entrails of a dead goat. ;D

Or watch the results on election night.  

Or wait for the Supreme Court to render a decision over a month after the election. >


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2012)

Like T6 says, this is a pocketbook election. Note the actual U3 number near the to right; 11%:


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2012)

More on trends. The polling by Rasmussen is probably the most reliable indicator of current positions and trends, and closer to the election you might find interesting data on Intrade, since as a "market" it can clear and process information from millions of sources (bettors) in real time, providing a much clearer and more fine grained picture than possible in any poll. 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/is-obama-slipping.php



> *IS OBAMA SLIPPING?*
> 
> The media-formerly-known-as-mainstream are doing their best –as a commentator who is more outspoken than I am put it–to “drag Barack Obama’s sorry ass across the finish line.” We see this every day; a particularly egregious example was the press coverage of Mitt Romney’s excellent trip overseas. The Media Research Center analyzed the news coverage of Romney’s trip and concluded that an astonishing 86% of network news stories focused on Romney’s supposed “gaffes.” If you watched the video of “reporters” from the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN heckling Romney in Poland, you don’t need a scorecard to know which presidential campaign they are trying to boost.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2012)

Romney needs to do one of two things with the Harry Reid accusations / implications / speculations.

He either needs to show the returns and deal with whatever fall out comes

or

He needs to ignore the obvious attempt to distract the campaign from it's main themes of Economy and Jobs. And his campaign team needs to give him a kick in the butt and remind him that he is running for President, not Senate.

Me thinks that the only real solution is the former, and not the latter. This problem is not going away. 

And the left wing media is already making hay with the archival footage of his 1994 senate run against Kennedy where he challenged Kennedy to release his tax returns. Then the 2002 race for Governor where he challenged his opponent's husband to release his returns as a lobbyist, but refused to release his own citing personal privacy. Ironically he had an epiphany from Kennedy.

See the first 8 item links in the Maddow Blog post here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/03/13109605-links-for-the-83-trms


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2012)

And much as I hate to admit it, Anne Coulter may be right.

http://youtu.be/okjIK0HrhXM


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Romney needs to do one of two things with the Harry Reid accusations / implications / speculations.
> 
> He either needs to show the returns and deal with whatever fall out comes
> 
> ...



It's a sad state of affairs when you have to hide your success.  The amount of money he makes should be largely irrelevant to his ability or inability to lead a country.  As for Kennedy, perhaps he only asked him to release his records as a way of pointing out some sort of "Limo liberal" type theme.  

I do agree that Romney's biggest opponent seems to be Romney himself.  All of his random statements (London's not ready for the olympics), refusal to release statements and information, and general lack of "it" are what will cause him to lose.  Obama is a weak leader who has likely put America back, fiscally at least, 20 years, but will likely come out on top of what SHOULD be a vote for america's soul, but will more likely be a vote for random, non-issues like gay marriage and abortion.   :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2012)

Every person interested in restoring civility and seriousness to US federal politics should stand behind Romney's refusal to release more past tax returns.

There was a point in time up to which the calls for more information were civil and reasonable, despite being a facade for a fishing expedition.

But since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a hearsay accusation, admitting directly in his own statements "Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain", the quest has become rude and corrosive.  Reid does not deserve to be rewarded for such discreditable behaviour, nor should such behaviour be encouraged among others, so the returns must not be released.


----------



## Haletown (5 Aug 2012)

Gotta  give Obama et al props for manufacturing a nice little bobble to tantalize the media and distract the nation's attention away from  the real story - the US economy, for at least a week or two.

The whole Harry Reid bit about Romney doesn't pay taxes has dominated news coverage and minimized the disastrous economic "recovery"  news. 

Some pretty slick politics . . .  Good old school drive by slimes for the media to feast on.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Aug 2012)

I debated on whether or not to post this here or in a separate thread, but here is a pretty interesting run of economic facts. Some random, some pertinent...

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/17/100-mind-blowing-facts-about-the-economy-.aspx


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2012)

If he's not going to release the returns, Romney has to stop biting every time it comes up. His statements aren't helping the cause, and has just devolved into a "You'll have to trust me and take my word for it" defense.

And no one is buying what he is selling.

What I do find curious about the Obama strategy is that so far they haven't gone after Romney's biggest weakness, his continually changing stance on just about every issue he's ever had an opinion on.

From abortion to health care to gay rights and on, there is tape of him taking one strong undeniable and absolute stance, only to have tape from another political run doing a 180 on the same issue. At best it shows he cannot be sincere, and panders to get votes. At worst it shows that he has no convictions, and can easily be lead by the nose.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2012)

Actually since President Obama has had a constantly changing opinion of everything from Gitmo to Gay marriage, perhaps it is best that that entire subject is left fallow...


----------



## Haletown (5 Aug 2012)

Obama has kept one promise.  He said elect me and you won't recognize America in four years.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2012)

Congress killed the ability for him to shut down the detention facilities at Gitmo, so you cannot lay that at his feet.

As for his views on gay marriage, it may be a little more complicated than saying he flip flopped. At least he never said he'd be a better defender of gay rights than Ted Kennedy, sign a law allowing same sex marriage as Governor, then say he'd bring in a constitutional amendment ensuring that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman.

Which is ironic when you consider Romney's Great grandfather was a polygamist.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Obama has kept one promise.  He said elect me and you won't recognize America in four years.



 :boring:


----------



## Haletown (7 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> . . . .   Romney's biggest weakness, his continually changing stance on just about every issue he's ever had an opinion on.
> 
> From abortion to health care to gay rights and on, there is tape of him taking one strong undeniable and absolute stance, only to have tape from another political run doing a 180 on the same issue. At best it shows he cannot be sincere, and panders to get votes. At worst it shows that he has no convictions, and can easily be lead by the nose.



Right. Because Obama has been completely consistent in his policies, positions and beliefs!

"In the case of our first postmodernist president, Barack Obama, there cannot be facts, past or present, only a set of shifting assertions that gain credence to the degree that they prove transitorily useful for progressive causes. A sympathetic biographer, David Maraniss, noted that almost all the touchstone events in Barack Obama’s mythographic memoir were fabricated."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313242/obama-never-never-land-victor-davis-hanson

Very lucid description of the Obama presidency.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Congress killed the ability for him to shut down the detention facilities at Gitmo, so you cannot lay that at his feet.



Really, a Congressional Democrat supermajority in the Senate and a Majority in the House prevented President Obama from Closing Gitmo from 2008 to 2010? They also blocked a great deal of the other legislation the Administration attempted to pass as well, I suppose....

And a special bonus for those people who continue to claim voter fraud isn"t a problem:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163



> *York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots*
> August 6, 2012
> 
> Byron York
> ...


----------



## Haletown (8 Aug 2012)

Must have been the same Super Majority that prevented him from fulfilling his campaign promise to cut the deficit by half in his first term.


----------



## cupper (8 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Really, a Congressional Democrat supermajority in the Senate



When exactly did the Dems have a supermajority in the Senate?

The results of the 2008 Senate elections were as follows

Democrats = 57 seats

Republicans = 41 seats

Independents = 2 seats (caucused with Dems.)

In actual fact the senate voted 90 to 6 to strip the $80 Million for closure of the Gitmo prisons from the war authorization bill.
It was considered a rebuke for lack of a clear plan to transfer the prisoners to the US mainland. No one in Congress wanted the prisoners to be transferred to US prisons in their own districts.

So yes, Congress killed the ability for the Administration to close the prisons in Gitmo.


----------



## cupper (8 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And a special bonus for those people who continue to claim voter fraud isn"t a problem:
> 
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163



 Seriously, you're going t play the voter fraud card? :

You should do more research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/lets-play-voter-fraud-whack-a-mole/2012/08/08/99f9b66c-e18e-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_blog.html?hpid=z7



> Voter fraud whack-a-mole continues. Remember the bottom line here: no one has found convincing evidence of any recent, significant level of voter fraud. The cases that have been alleged often turn out to be phony. And the voter suppression “remedies” Republicans like don’t have anything to do with whatever fraud is generally alleged.
> 
> So: the latest conservative talking point is the claim that there were a bunch of felons who voted improperly in Minnesota in 2008 — perhaps enough to have flipped the very close Senate race in that cycle from Democratic Al Franken to Republican Norm Coleman. Conservative columnist Byron York points out correctly that flipping that seat would have been hugely consequential; the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and other legislation might well have failed if Dems had lost just one more Senate seat.
> 
> But the accusations are old and long ago debunked. The evidence that York discusses is in a new book by a conservative journalist and a former Bush administration lawyer — charges that were pretty convincingly rebutted when they were made back in 2010. The authors don’t have a great track record on such charges, as voting expert Rick Hasen notes. And a new Steven Rosenfeld article today points out the weaknesses of this latest case; basically what we have is, well, not very much. Some ex-felons voted. A plurality might have voted for Franken. It wouldn’t have yielded Coleman anywhere near enough net votes had they been tossed.



And just to add insult to injury: The Pennsylvania Govenrment admits in it's defense of a challenge of Voter ID laws they admitted were implimented to prevent voter fraud that there has never been a single case of suspected voter fraud.

*Ahead Of Voter ID Trial, Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud*

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_no_in_person_voter_fraud.php  



> As the Justice Department investigates Pennsylvania’s voter ID law on the federal level, a coalition of civil rights groups is gearing up for a state trial starting Wednesday examining whether the law is allowable under Pennsylvania’s constitution.
> 
> In that case, Pennsylvania might have handed those groups and their clients (including 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite) a bit of an advantage: They’ve formally acknowledged that there’s been no reported in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and there isn’t likely to be in November.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (8 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> When exactly did the Dems have a supermajority in the Senate?
> 
> The results of the 2008 Senate elections were as follows
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Other that the point that the concept of a super majority seems beyond your understanding, with 100 seats in the US Senate, if the Democrats hold 57 of them, they have a majority.
> 
> Since the Democrats also held a majority of the House seats and they owned the White House, they could have passed Bills as they wished.



 :facepalm:

It seems that you are the one who needs to be educated as to how the Senate works with respect to majorities, and what constitutes a majority.

First, when the majority holds less than 60 seats, the minority can essentially hold the majority hostage by initiating a filibuster. Or in the case of the GOP minority of the 111 and 112th congresses, when you have a Dem majority with no balls to force the issue, they only need to threaten a filibuster. There are some obscure rules which can be used to do work arounds when the minority becomes obstructionist, such as those used to pass the Affordable Care Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, the majority needs 60 seats.

Then there is the real supermajority of 67 seats where they have full control to even change the rules of the Senate without opposition support.

Then there is the "anonymous hold" where any senator can place a hold on any item of senate business, indefinitely, for any reason, until the receive whatever benefit or resolution they are looking for.

As for holding a majority in the House, it's all meaningless when you can't get it through the Senate. As we have seen in the 112th Congress.

 :


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2012)

The "Mitt killed my Wife" smear comes undone.

"The Obama team ran four years ago selling a product that didn’t exist. They created a hologram dream candidate, multi-racial, capable of great oratorical performances as long as he stuck to the script, with not much of a legislative record that could be used against him, and with a career prior to politics that could be made to sound romantic rather than fringe. He was a teacher! He organized communities! He cared. They marketed this product the way Hollywood might market a movie: “In a world..where a country is divided by race, and by wealth, and by a long and drawn-out war…comes a man…the perfect man…post-racial…post-partisan…promising peace. That man…is Barack Obama.” Cut to smiling, waving young man, flash bulbs pop as the adoring crowd roars, fade to black.

People voted for Obama because they got caught up in the emotions of electing the first black president, the young man who had reportedly taken Harvard by storm, the bright fresh face with no long political career and the baggage that builds up around even the best and most principled political actor. Obama was a mass-marketed president to a country that wanted to feel good, and didn’t want to do its homework on the man who wanted to lead them. He smiled broadly, said nice things, and got handed the keys to the country."



http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/08/why-team-obama-ran-with-the-dishonest-mitt-killed-my-wife-ad/

Nice  . . .


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How did he get ObamaCare passed?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> How did he get ObamaCare passed?


Aliens...


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2012)

Well that explains the Corn Husker Kickback   8)


----------



## cupper (9 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> How did he get ObamaCare passed?



In a nutshell, there were several attempts to filibuster, but there were still enough moderates to get a 60-39 vote to end debate, and then had the same results in the final vote on the bill. The House had it's own bill which was significantly different, and Obama introduced a compromise bill modeled on the Senate bill. Through a process called Reconciliation, the House passed the new bill, and went back to the Senate with amendments to bring the original Senate bill in line with the one passed by the house. Reconciliation only needs a simple majority.

And the reconciliation process stripped the Corn Husker Kickback out of the final bill.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2012)

So we should be looking for which track; ideology or stewardship? As Krauthammer suggests, the stewardship argument falls from the ideology argument, so I suspect we will see both tracks engaged in the election campaign:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/10/charles-krauthammer-obamas-ideology-explains-his-failure/



> Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s ideology explains his failure
> Charles Krauthammer | Aug 10, 2012 9:41 AM ET
> More from Charles Krauthammer
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (10 Aug 2012)

Amen Chuck.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Aug 2012)

The President is vulnerable because of his far left policies and the economy. In 08 he garnered alot of support from the black community and from college students. Today there is lukewarm support in the black community and a tossup among the so called youth vote. College graduates cant find jobs,of course older Americans cant find work either.


----------



## Haletown (11 Aug 2012)

Stories that make you go hmmmmmm.  Maybe those spots means he is a leopard after all.



"Barack Obama’s tenure as president has been such a conspicuous disaster that absent some enormous scandal in camp Romney, I believe he is a shoo-in. Of course, it is possible that we will learn something damaging about Romney. Maybe someone will discover that he sat for 20 years at the feet of a radical preacher who instructed his congregation to say not “God bless America” but “God damn America.” Maybe it will be discovered that he started his political career in the living room of a former Weather Underground terrorist who publicly declared that he and his fellow terrorists did not detonate enough bombs in the 1960s and 1970s. Maybe someone will turn up the fact that all his school records are sealed, that when he was a young politician he regularly voted “present” rather than take a stand on important issues. Perhaps someone will publicize the fact that in a radio interview he complained that the Civil Rights movement failed to provide for “redistributive change.” Maybe."


http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/08/11/the-comeback-team/?singlepage=true

Excellent choice in Paul Ryan.  He'll slaughter Biden in the VP debates.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2012)

Paul Ryan is a good choice for so many reasons. He will fous the election of the economy and the budget (the Democrat Majority Senate has not passed or proposed a budget for over 1200 days now), and bring the election debate firmly on both the stewardship and the ideology tracks in ways the Obama campaign will not easily be able to derail. (For those of you who don't think this is possible, remember how Ryan schooled President Obama during the "healthcare summit?"). Powerline commentary here:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/its-ryan.php



> *IT’S RYAN!*
> 
> I’ve been holding my powder the last couple of days about the VP pick, wondering if it might be true that Romney would pick Paul Ryan.  Long time readers will recall that Ryan was, on the merits, my choice as a presidential candidate early last year.  News tonight is that Romney will announce tomorrow morning that Ryan is to be his running mate.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (11 Aug 2012)

Globe Politics‏@globepolitics

 Romney needs saving by Private Ryan.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2012)

More on Congressman Ryan. I suspect that he will be much more popular with the base and voters than the Presidential candidate himself (something that Governor Palin brought to the 2008 race, triggering a pretty spiteful and petty jealousy in the GOP camp). Since Congressman Ryan is still young, you can expect him to be able to serve two terms as VP and another two as President, profoundly changing the United States during that time through careful application of principles to all spending and programs:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313732/smart-democrats-should-be-worried-john-fund



> *Smart Democrats Should Be Worried*
> By John Fund
> August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M. Comments172
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2012)

Wonderful riff of "Downfall" on "Day by Day"

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/08/12/


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2012)

Kelly McParland, in the _National Post_, notes that the "Republican ‘dream team’ will test whether Americans still believe." I'm not sure the word "still" belongs, but ... in the column McParland says that Americans will have to answer some questions:



> [size=10pt]1. Voters for once will get exactly what they claim to want, a choice between two candidates with sharply differing agendas and two clear alternatives.
> 
> 2. Ryan’s stark financial proposals means U.S. voters will finally be confronted with the courage of their convictions: do they really want the smaller, less intrusive government so many of them claim to? Are they willing to accept the price it would involve?
> 
> 3. Similarly, voters will be tested for the depth of their faith in lower taxes as the key to national recovery. Barack Obama will raise taxes. Romney/Ryan will cut them. Either way the impact will be dramatic.



I am not convinced that *most* Americans are any more than marginally different from most Canadians; my guess is that they, like former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall, feel "entitled to their entitlements." Equally I doubt that most Americans understand much less are prepared to cope with the price of a "smaller, less intrusive government." At a guess: less than 10% of Americans have any useful appreciation of their country's economic position. Most Americans will not attempt to deal with McParland's second point because they cannot understand it. President Obama knows that and he will, with good effect, frighten a huge minority of Americans into voting against Romney/Ryan and for their entitlements.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Aug 2012)

"Smaller, less intrusive government" could just be rolling spending back to 2007 or 2001 or 1998 levels.  It is hard to take seriously the people who describe every curtailment as "gutting" program X.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2012)

The Ryan Plan for putting the budget back on track is endorsed by some very high level figures, such as on this video right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBT5wnDK7L0


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2012)

Two points:

1) Ryan is not at the top of the ticket, so won't be setting policy

2) A significant number of Congressional Republicans are running away from the Ryan Plan, even if they voted for it.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2012)

Since Governor Romney selected Congressman Ryan as VP partially because he is associated with budget matters (including the Ryan plan), you can say the Romney ticket is now purposefully associated with the Ryan plan. This is a matter of political calculation, since the Ryan plan is very much about changing direction and focuses the election squarely on the economy, where President Obama has no legs to stand on.

I'm pretty sure that the clip with President Obama endorsing the Ryan plan will be an election ad very soon, since it undercuts the fear mongering and makes the Administrations attacks look silly, and the Administration as a whole look ineffectual ("the President thought this was a good idea in 2010, but did nothing about it?"). 

As for Republicans trying to run away from the Ryan Plan, they are free to do so (and probably will if they are "establishment" Republicans), which will simply strengthen the hand of the TEA Party movement in the future, _especially_ if Governor Romney wins in November. I'm sure a lot of Republican candidates are making their own calculations about the future recognizing there is a much different social, political and economic environment now.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Aug 2012)

This post could go here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/100655.300.html *Osama Bin Laden Dead*

I think it is a more appropriate fit here. The organization says it is releasing the video now as it is an election year; the only time politicians pay attention.

*The movie Dishonorable Disclosure sends message to Obama: You didn’t build that*

Elections 2012 - August 15, 2012 - By: Sean Riley  

The 22 minute movie here: Special Operations (OPSEC) Political Committee  http://www.dishonorabledisclosure.com/

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads that scold President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc., say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry's Vietnam War service.

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that can be seen here called Dishonorable Disclosure. The movie includes criticism of Obama and his administration. Some memorable quotes in the film are the following:

 "Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not," Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

 "As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy," Smith continues. "It will get Americans killed."

In the film, Scott Taylor, a U.S. Navy SEAL, and a member of Operation Iraqi Freedom, combined the fear of intelligence leaks with the raid of the Osama bin Laden compound thusly:

 “I believe that a ten-year-old would be able to understand that if you disclose how we got (to the Osama bin Laden compound), how we took down the building, what we did, how many people were there, that it’s going to hinder future operations and certainly hurt the success of those future operations for the DOD (Department of Defense), for the military, intelligence communities, and everyone as a whole.”

The Obama administration argues that the individuals in this film have no authority to speak on these issues:

 An Obama campaign official said: "No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it's clear they've resorted to making things up for purely political reasons."

Obama has highlighted his foreign policy record on the campaign trail, emphasizing how he presided over the killing of bin Laden, as well as how he ended the war in Iraq and set a timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan.

However, Obama has come under sharp attack from leading Republican lawmakers who have accused his administration of being behind high-level leaks of classified information. Leading Democrat lawmakers have also expressed shock at the level of leaking that has occurred, but they have not directed accusations at the Obama administration.

Republican lawmakers have pointed to media reports about clandestine drone attacks, informants planted in al Qaeda affiliates and alleged cyber-warfare against Iran that Republicans say were calculated to promote Obama's image as a strong leader in an election year.

The White House has denied leaking classified information.

The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc., Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia. Calling itself "OPSEC" for short - which in spy jargon means "operational security" - the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.

Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.

In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a "watchdog organization" but added that the current administration "has certainly leaked more than others."

OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the August 15th release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.

Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was "not a partisan concern." But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets "to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples' lives.... We want to see that they don't do this again."

Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group's message and make-up are nonpolitical.

 "You'll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship," he said.{1}

Look, Mr. President, if a successful operation was conducted during your administration, you didn’t get there on your own. We citizens, military personnel, and intelligence communities are always struck by politicians who think that when a successful operation is conducted, well, it must be because they’re just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there in the military, and in intelligence agencies, who played a greater role in this operation than you did. We’re tired of politicians thinking that a successful operation was conducted based on one politician thinking that the operation’s success was based on the fact that that politician worked harder than everybody else. We want to tell you something, Mr. President, there were a whole bunch of hardworking people involved in this operation. (Applause.)

If a successful operation was conducted during your administration, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a multitude of great military minds somewhere in your administration, and in the previous administration, that worked over the space of ten years to bring this operation to fruition. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American military operation that allowed you to thrive. Somebody risked their life to attain intelligence and information. If you’ve presided over a successful military operation, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. This successful operation didn’t get invented on its own. It didn’t even start during your administration. The military, the U.S. intelligence community, and even the previous administration created this operation, and they didn't do so for you to create a political talking point.

The point is, is that when operations such as these succeed, they succeed because of number of individuals showing great initiative, but also because they did it together. There are some things, like the initial information gathering missions, the intensive multiplatform surveillance operations, identification of al-Qaeda couriers, receiving information in interrogations (some coercive) and corroborating them, using informants and other information gathering techniques to gain information on the compound, wire-tapping, conducting exercises and learning from operatives on the scene and correcting mistakes based on that information, and selecting the ideal military personnel to conduct such a military offensive{2}, and you don’t do that on our own Mr. President. I mean, imagine if this civilian president had attempted to take a hands on approach in this operation. (He can’t even throw a baseball like a fully equipped, adult male.) That would be a hard way to conduct a military operation.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the killing of Osama bin Laden, you know what, there are some things that other people do better. That’s how we conducted this operation. That’s how we killed Osama bin Laden. That’s how our fellow Americans got together to conduct this brilliant operation. That’s how we conduct all operations. The president, regardless of party, is a member of the civilian population, and we couldn’t do it without his rubber stamp approval, but the military, the members of the intelligence agencies, and the civilian population rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason we’re speaking out against this President — because we still believe in America. You’re not on your own, Mr. President, we’re in this together. Give credit where credit is due, and quit putting the country in peril for the purpose of winning one election. We know that you’ll fundamentally disagree with this opinion, but in a country of 315 million people, that is over two hundred years old, no one man, or administration, is so important that we should be willing to put the country at peril to secure his or her re-election.

{1}http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/special-ops-obama bin/2012/08/14/id/448585?s=al&promo_code=FC15-1

{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Aug 2012)

I noticed that the sign was sponsored by a guy from Gainesville , Texas . Gainesville is about 45 miles North of Dallas and was recently voted "MOST PATRIOTIC TOWN IN THE NATION" by USA Today.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Aug 2012)

Very interesting, in our country I think this sign could lead to an arrest. Amazing the level of division and emotion between the various political, and even amongst, groups in that country.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Aug 2012)

> Very interesting, in our country I think this sign could lead to an arrest.



Who are you kidding? If the NDP, Liberals. or the Greens put up a similar sign against the current government do you think charges would be laid against free speech?

How about a bill board from The Council of Canadians?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> > Very interesting, in our country I think this sign could lead to an arrest.
> 
> 
> Who are you kidding? If the NDP, Liberals. or the Greens put up a similar sign against the current government do you think charges would be laid against free speech?
> ...


I agree it wouldn't necessarily result in an arrest here, but if someone, say, Tweeted/blogged that same wording after, for example, a critical Tweet/mention about the president, I wouldn't be surprised if the Secret Service gave that Tweeter a call to find out more about how an incumbent president should be "removed" the same way the SEALS "removed" Bin Laden.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2012)

When you want to know why the campaign is so negative, you don't need to look very far:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-obamas-betrayal/2012/08/16/f165cc14-e7d9-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html



> *Obama’s betrayal*
> By Michael Gerson,
> Published: August 16The Washington Post
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (17 Aug 2012)

A little context on Michael Gerson:

Prior to joining the Bush Administration, he was a senior policy advisor with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy research institution.[5] He also worked at various times as an aide to Indiana Senator Dan Coats and a speechwriter for the Presidential campaign of Bob Dole before briefly leaving the political world to cover it as a journalist for U.S. News & World Report.[6] Gerson also worked at one point as a ghostwriter for Charles Colson.[7]
 In early 1999, Karl Rove recruited Gerson for the Bush campaign.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2012)

Notwithstanding his potential for partisanship, Gerson is correct.

There may be a lot of misrepresentations, misunderstandings, outright lies, and other invective generated about Romney's and Ryan's plans, but at least people are talking about actual policy proposals.

I know the Obama campaign has policy promises up on its website, but...

If there is any substance there, Obama and Biden don't seem to talk much about it.

If the candidates are talking about it, reporters don't seem to be reporting much of it.

If some of it is surfacing in small publications and behind the "front" pages, the prominent bloggers and commentators are not dissecting it (in either fair or unfair terms).

What the Obama campaign and its supporters seem to be executing is a campaign chiefly of character assassination and fearmongering.  It is more than peculiar that a Chicago pol can attack two bland, inoffensive gentlemen, and the focus remains on trying to wring wrongdoing out of the latter rather than former.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Aug 2012)

When you cant run on your record,you obfuscate.


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2012)

And all the GOP supporters are pissed off because the strategy is working.

Romney has so far run a campaign that is suffering from the political equivalent of ED. And all the Viagra in the world will not get it up.

They bring in Ryan to strengthen his cred with the base, but at the same time castrate him by not allowing him to talk about the details. And Romney can't seem to decide if he's going to promote the Ryan plan, his own plan, or just not talk about any plan.

And the continue to spout off proven lies and misrepresentations as absolute truths.

He has to stop campaigning for the votes from the right, and start running for votes from the middle, or he will not get to 270 in November.

Does anyone remember the last time Romney has talked about the economy?


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2012)

And I'm going to enjoy the next three weeks back in Canada getting away from this election crap. k:


----------



## Haletown (18 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And all the GOP supporters are pissed off because the strategy is working.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone remember the last time Romney has talked about the economy?



Yesterday.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2012)

Now Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan have another issue to talk about; Medicare reform. (That is actually a subset of the economy, so you can chalk that in the "Talking about the economy" multiple times a day from now on  ) Thr article points out the Dem's assault on the Republicans Medicare proposals are baseless and provide a very clear line of attack against the Administration's record and plans:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/give_em_hell_mitt_fight_obama_smears_bKrR6k0wvrMa25cIQbhgBJ



> *Give ’em hell, Mitt: fight Obama’s smears*
> 
> On Medicare, the Romney campaign is borrowing the strategic logic of a long-ago military legend.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Aug 2012)

It has been said that Medicare is the third rail of American politics. Seniors vote its that simple. Medicare reform is necessary but no one wants to tackle the problem. Over time the benefits will be reduced and the retirement point will be pushed back. Some wags think that Obamacare will solve the problem by killing off the old lessening the burden on the program.If media reports are accurate this is already happening in the UK.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2012)

I'm not entirely sure I understand how Twitter is supposed to revolutionize politics. Issues like the economy and Medicare reform simply cannot be reduced to 140 character texts (it's bad enough when trying to explain things on a TV 30 second soundbite; I actually enjoy watching political stuff on YouTube or reading articles in Atlantic, the Economist or National Review since there is more time to get into the meat of things).

OTOH, perhaps the very lack of detail is what makes Twitter interesting to politicians; people like President Obama or Premier McGuinty are probably quite pleased that no one can press them for detailed answers on Twitter </cynical>. 

I'm also wondering if the people promoting Twitter even understand what is going on; the "Arab Spring" model does not seem like a good fit to me, since there you had an old and established "underground" movement (the Muslim Brotherhood) using social media tools to enhance a deep and well organized ground game. Contrast this with the loss of the Iranian "Green Revolution"; they had the Internet but lacked the depth, organization, logistics or even the "safe zones" that insurgencies need to succeed. Social media tools got them farther than they otherwise would have gotten, but they still could not achieve their goals. China used the "Great Firewall" and the formidable power of the State security apparatus to snuff out even the first flicker of the putative "Jasmine Revolution"; even if it was only a rumor that is all it ever remained.

This article talks about how Twitter is being used in the US election:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/18/obama-romney-twitter/



> *The head of Twitter’s governmental team has just the thing for the next age of political interaction*
> Matt Hartley | Aug 18, 2012 4:08 PM ET
> More from Matt Hartley | @thehartley
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2012)

The cover of Newsweek.If the media turns on the President he's done.







http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html


----------



## GAP (20 Aug 2012)

Oooohhhhh.,....that's gotta hurt......


----------



## Journeyman (20 Aug 2012)

And now for something completely different.....






Someone's got _wa-aay_ to much free time on their hands.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Aug 2012)

From @DRUNKHULK on Twitter:





> SINCE ROMNEY IS MORMON! DRUNK HULK WONDER IF RYAN COOL WITH ROMNEY HAVING OTHER VICE PRESIDENTS!


----------



## a_majoor (20 Aug 2012)

An inside look at the Obama campaign machine. It may not be surprising that there is discord and friction, especially given the large size of the operation and the stakes involved, but the lack of focus is pretty ominous for the campaign. The remark about Super PACs:



> Obama still believes Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that unleashed the super PACs, poses a huge threat to representative democracy by equating the largesse of self-serving billionaires with free speech.



is particularly ironic considering the way the 2008 campaign was financed and the boastful $1 billion target Obama himself declared as the amount he was going to raise for the 2012 election. All in all very interesting, and I look forward to seeing the inside of the Romney campaign whenever that comes out:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E3FDD5B-2632-40C1-B5AA-7CD1B8E8A2C8



> *POLITICO e-book: Obama campaign roiled by conflict*
> By: Glenn Thrush
> August 20, 2012 04:23 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (21 Aug 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The cover of Newsweek.If the media turns on the President he's done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not only do I have to wonder what the cover will do to Newsweek's readership (I know a few people who have just cancelled their subscriptions), but as I recall they also did the Bachmann Crazy Eyes cover.

The article inside, however, is complete and utter drivel. Not only does Niall Ferguson use some ridiculous stats about the economy for his attack (start points a year before President Obama took office!), he ends with suggesting that Americans have a "choice", as though Romney has some brilliant alternative way forward. Reading about how things like Ryan's medicare gutting are going over in places like Florida, I'm not sure Americans are all that happy with that choice, and Ferguson definitely doesn't build any sort of case for Romney.

And then they've got Akin and "legitimate" rapes. Yet more poison for female voters, I'd think, which the GOP are scrambling to distance themselves from while the Dems will probably keep it heavy in the press as best they can.


----------



## Redeye (21 Aug 2012)

Over at The Atlantic, Niall Ferguson's article gets pilloried by Matthew O'Brien:


A Full Fact-Check of Niall Ferguson's Very Bad Argument Against Obama

inShare
13 AUG 20 2012, 12:51 PM ET 342
A counterfactual history of the past four years.


(Wikimedia Commons)

Celebrity historian Niall Ferguson doesn't like President Obama, and doesn't think you should either.

That's perfectly fine. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of the president. Here's the big one: 8.3 percent. That's the current unemployment rate, fully three years on from the official end of the Great Recession. But rather than make this straightforward case against the current administration, Ferguson delves into a fantasy world of incorrect and tendentious facts. He simply gets things wrong, again and again and again. (A point my colleague James Fallows makes as well in a must-read.)

Here's a tour of some of the more factually challenged sections of Ferguson's piece.

"Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak."

Did you catch that little switcheroo? Ferguson concedes that stocks have done very well since January 2009, but then says that private sector payrolls have not since January 2008. Notice now? Ferguson blames Obama for job losses that happened a full year before he took office. The private sector has actually added jobs since Obama was sworn in -- 427,000 of them, to be exact. For context, remember that the private sector lost 170,000 jobs during George W. Bush's eight years.



Of course, it's not really fair to blame Obama -- or Bush -- for jobs lost in their first few months before their policies took effect. If we more sensibly look at private sector payrolls after their first six months in office, then Obama has created 3.1 million jobs and Bush created 967,000 jobs.

"Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009." 

I can't replicate this result. It's difficult, because Ferguson does not cite his source. The Census Bureau only has data on real median household incomes through 2010 -- and it shows them falling 2.28 percent from 2009. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has numbers on real median weekly earnings that go through 2012, but those only show a 3.7 percent decrease from June 2009.

"Welcome to Obama's America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return--almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50-50 nation--half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits."

It is true that 46 percent of households did not pay federal income tax in 2011. It is not true that they pay no taxes. Federal income taxes account barely account for half of federal taxes, and much less of total taxes, if you count the state and local level. Many of those other taxes can be regressive. If you take all taxes into account, our system is barely progressive at all.

But why do almost half of all households pay no federal income tax? Because they don't have much money to tax. Here's the breakdown from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Half of these households are simply too poor -- they make under $20,000 -- to have any liability. Another quarter are retirees on tax-exempt Social Security benefits. The remaining households have no liability because of tax expenditures like the earned-income tax credit or the child credit.

In other words, the poor, the old, and children. Not exactly the "50-50 nation" of makers and takers -- or "lucky duckies" -- that Ferguson imagines.

"By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), [debt-to-GDP ratio] will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund."

This is incorrect. Ferguson had it right the first time -- the number that matters is debt-to-GDP, not debt-to-revenue. The former reflects our capacity to pay; the latter our willingness to pay right now. Moving on.

"Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue." 

Ferguson wasn't always a critic of the stimulus. Back in August 2009, he wrote that "the stimulus clearly made a significant contribution to stabilizing the U.S. economy." Perhaps he thinks the stimulus should have been bigger so the "sugar rush" would last lasted longer? It's not clear. What is clear is that Obama has tried to close long-term deficits -- several times! And the sequester scheduled for next January is his deal with Republicans to rein in spending. More on that in a bit.

"The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues--what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true "fiscal gap"--is $222 trillion." 

That's a lot of trillions! But if our fiscal gap is "really" this many trillions, why can we borrow for 30 years for a real rate of 0.64 percent? It's because this number is meaningless. First of all, it seems to project many decades of growth figures and budget decisions that we simply don't know will happen. It assumes the Bush tax cuts never ever expire and that the healthcare cost curve never ever bends. This is like projecting, in 1942, that the Empire of Japan will rule the entire Asian continent for 70 years based on a few years of battle outcomes. It's an interesting prediction, but it's not an empirical vision of the future.

"The country's largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new "Basel III" accords governing bank capital adequacy." 

This would be damning if we had already fully implemented the Basel III bank rules. We have not. As this handy timeline from Deloitte shows, the bank capital ratios don't take effect until January 2013. And even if they had -- which again, they have not -- it would be a bad idea to change risk-weighted capital too much too soon. Europe's banks have done just that, and the results have left something to be desired. The IMF projects their banks will deleverage some $2.6 trillion over the next year and a half -- starving their economies of credit when they most need it. In other words, Ferguson not only get the facts wrong; he gets the economics wrong too.

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the "fee for service" model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers." 

There are reasons to think the ACA will fail to address the core defects of the health care system. But it's wrong to say it does nothing to address them. Here's a partial list of the things Obamacare does. It tackles the long-run explosion of Medicare costs. It tries to move away from the fee-for-service model that drives healthcare inflation. And it cuts the link between employment and insurance. In other words, Obamacare does everything Ferguson says it doesn't do, with the exception of tort reform. Matt Yglesias of Slate has a good explainer on how Obamacare tries to do these things -- everything from IPAB, to Accountable Care Organizations and guaranteed issue. Read it.

"The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012-22 period." 

Maybe Ferguson doesn't understand the meaning of the word "deficit"? The only other explanation is that he is deliberately misleading his readers. The CBO is quite clear about Obamacare's budgetary implications. It reduces the deficit. Here's what the CBO said exactly:

[T]he effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period.

In other words, the law is more than paid for. As Paul Krugman pointed out, it does spend $1.042 trillion covering people, but it pays for this coverage by finding savings in Medicare and levying a surtax on investment income for high-earners. That Ferguson looked up the CBO's estimate of the bill's cost and didn't notice that those costs are paid for is peculiar indeed. Even more peculiar is that he is apparently doubling down on this falsehood. And yes, it is a very deliberate falsehood.

"Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no "grand bargain" with the House Republicans--which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output."  

Now, Obama did not push Congress to adopt Simpson-Bowles, but neither did Congress adopt it. Among those who voted against it? Paul Ryan, who Ferguson later lauds for his fiscal courage. Although that wasn't the last attempt at a so-called "grand bargain". That came during the debt ceiling standoff the Republicans forced. Obama offered a long-term deal heavily tilted towards Republican priorities -- read: spending cuts -- that the Republicans spurned. Among those who pushed the Republicans to reject it? Paul Ryan, who worried that a deal would burnish Obama's bipartisan credentials and make his re-election a foregone conclusion.

And then there's the cognitive dissonance of it all. Noah Smith points out that Ferguson reproaches Obama for both running big deficits and for closing them. 

"The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States." 

China has 1.3 billion people. The United States has 300 million people. China's GDP will pass ours when they are only four times poorer than us. That might happen in 2017; it might happen later if China's current slowdown is more than a blip. It doesn't really matter if and when this happens. There's nothing Obama can do to prevent China from catching up -- nor should Obama want to! Economics isn't zero sum. The more money China has, the more money they have to buy things from us and other countries. This is good news, and yet Ferguson treats it like a modern-day equivalent of "losing China".

"In his notorious "you didn't build that" speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn't mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved." 

It's bizarre that Ferguson thinks government policies didn't help create America's middle class. America was the first country to make high school compulsory. It was also the first country to make college widely accessible with the G.I. bill. This democratization of education went a long way towards laying the foundation for broad-based prosperity. And as for big things the government has achieved lately, surely moving to near-universal healthcare coverage counts?

***
In the world as Ferguson describes it, Obama is a big-spending, weak-kneed liberal who can't get the economy turned around. Think Jimmy Carter on steroids. But the world is not as Ferguson describes it. A fact-checked version of the world Ferguson describes reveals a completely different narrative -- a muddy picture of the past four years, where Obama has sometimes cast himself as a stimulator, a deficit hawk, a health care liberal and conservative reformer all at once. And it's a world where the economy is getting better, albeit slowly.

It would have been worthwhile for Ferguson to explain why Obama doesn't deserve re-election in the real world we actually live in. Instead, we got an exercise in Ferguson's specialty -- counterfactual history.

======================================================================================================

I like his final point. I find that most of the GOP's arguments and positions are simply not relevant to the real world, only the fantasy world they have created for themselves and are desperately trying to convince others is real.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Aug 2012)

The _real world_ that Niall Ferguson and the rest are reacting to is summed up in this graphic. The two solid lines were used by President Obama to argue for the Stimulus (and the $5 trillion gusher of deficit spending over the last three years is impelled by the same Keynesian world view). The dotted red line is the official unemployment figure, while U3 unemployment is noted in the upper right corner at 11%.

With the number of unemployed equal to the population of Canada, it is very difficult for most Americans to avoid bumping into the _real world_ in their own circle of family and friends, and wondering if they should be doing something different to change the trajectory of the last three years.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Aug 2012)

I see the fart-catching has begun.  Former Jimmy Carter speechwriter James Fallows apparently does not understand that the US was attempting nation-building in Iraq, or has chosen to mislead on that issue.  This isn't a matter of interpreting statistics or data differently; this is a broad-brush false revision of understanding what the US was setting about in Iraq.  I read him irregularly at "The Atlantic", but regret that I generally regard his contributions as untrustworthy - I can't tell whether he is being objective about other things if he is not objective about all.

Ferguson's position is not much different than Paul Krugman's when opining on politics - an academic not exactly within his field - but Ferguson's field is much closer than Krugman's.  Anyone who has ever cited Krugman on politics approvingly is abjectly hypocritical to simply pooh-pooh Ferguson as an academic outside of his lane.  Numerous paragraphs of ad hominem drivel should simply be struck from the articles to make them shorter, easier to read, and more efficiently informative.

The point about employment, missed or deliberately overlooked by Fallows and O'Brien, is that it hasn't recovered.  Pro-Obama fact-and-figures citers want to talk about degrees of improvement since the office holder took office, because they know most measurements were deep in a trough at that point; it is easy to show improvement when you start from rock bottom.  But the benchmark for recovery is the way things were before the trough.  That places the top of the yardstick sometime before everything started unravelling in mid-2008.  Employment hasn't recovered to its pre-recession peak.  Period.  Either Obama supporters should decline his responsibility for employment, or stop talking about it as if Obama is responsible and has done a good job.  That he was not responsible for the job losses (or any other shortfall) at the onset of economic contraction is beside the point.  He is the president.  Has he executed policy to effect recovery well, or not?

The argument that low income households make insufficient income to pay income tax is valid as a matter of calculation, given the rates and structure.  Ferguson is incorrect that those who do not pay income tax, pay no taxes at all.  However, the extended argument they should not pay income tax doesn't pass muster with me.  As a student, I had to pay income tax on what I earned during summers, and it was well short of a full year's income for a single person living in poverty.  (I did not take out any loans).  Nor is an overly progressive income tax structure a wise policy.  It divides people too sharply into perceived groups of "takers" and "makers", and leaves a government vulnerable to excessively sharp revenue drops during downturns.  It is politically and socially unhealthy when too many people see government as a source of entitlements rather than a sink of obligations, and the US federal income tax structure is already dangerously progressive (as demonstrated by the amount of shortfall in its income tax revenues).

Debt-to-revenue is important because debt servicing costs squeeze out other spending or necessitate additional borrowing.  For those needing clarification, see summaries of Canada's federal finances during the 1980s.  The US enjoys an artificial borrower's holiday because financial pressures elsewhere drive so much money to US federal securities.  There is no reason to assume change will be gradual when it comes.  Regardless, policies of the current administration have not raised US GDP growth anywhere near the administration's own targets.

Whether or not Ferguson was a critic of "stimulus" before is irrelevant to assessing whether the "stimulus" achieved what it was sold to do, or whether the revenue/expense gap has been closed.  The US federal deficit is still remarkably large, and there is no fiscal room to manoeuvre at the state and municipal levels.

I see people still cling desperately to the CBO scoring of PPACA.  The CBO didn't think all of the assumptions it was required to use were valid, so I am mystified that any informed person aware of those assumptions and the CBO's comments regards the CBO scoring as anything more than emperor's clothes.  Entitlement programs historically not only tend to cost more than the means found to pay for them, but also have a habit of costing much more than initially projected.  A prudent person should assume that PPACA will generate vastly more expenses than revenue, but it doesn't take more than removal of the politically absurd assumptions and the accounting tricks to show it.

"Now, Obama did not push Congress to adopt Simpson-Bowles..." and that is all that needs to be said.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> "Now, Obama did not push Congress to adopt Simpson-Bowles..." and that is all that needs to be said.




Anyone standing for national elected office in the USA who does not promise to push the congress to pass or, if running for congress, promise to vote for Simpson-Bowles, as a start point, is an irresponsible fool. And that characterization applies to Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and most candidates for the House and Senate.


----------



## Haletown (21 Aug 2012)

Ferguson speaks.

Fires broadsides back his critics


"The first tactic is to ignore completely the arguments of the piece. The second is then to engage in nitpicking and claim to be fact checking when in fact all you’re offering is a series of alternative opinions. And then you round it off by making hysterical calls for the office resignation. This is such a tried and tested method and I was fully expecting it. The usual suspects, led of course by Paul Krugman, have obliged. But they have not addressed any of the arguments I have made in the piece so I will dismiss them pretty briskly today."



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/niall-fergusson-takes-on-paul-krugman-andrew-sullivan-who-called-his-newsweek-story-inaccurate/


----------



## cupper (21 Aug 2012)

There seems to be an echo in here.

Either that or I'm experiencing deja vu all over again.

op:


----------



## cupper (21 Aug 2012)

On a lighter note:

Perhaps Romney should strike a deal, if Obama releases the home brew recipe, he'll release 5 yeara of tax returns.

*Transparency advocates want White House beer recipe*

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/transparency-advocates-want-white-house-beer-recipe-132683.html?hp=l16



> A group of home-brewing enthusiasts and transparency advocates want the government to hand over the recipe for the home brewed beers created at the White House.
> 
> As reported by Government Executive, a Reddit user has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the recipe, arguing that "disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations of activities of the government."
> 
> ...



On the other hand, it is refreshing to see that vote buying with alcohol is still alive and well. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (21 Aug 2012)

C'mon Cupper, you know;



"He didn't brew that...."  



;D ;D ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Aug 2012)

I would love to see Obama's college transcripts and birth certificate. You know his Kenyan one. ;D


----------



## cupper (21 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> C'mon Cupper, you know;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course not. THat's what college interns are for. (Unless your Bill Clinton) ;D



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I would love to see Obama's college transcripts and birth certificate. You know his Kenyan one. ;D



The beer consumption does go to disprove the secret muslim thingy though. :nod:


----------



## aesop081 (21 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> The beer consumption does go to disprove the secret muslim thingy though. :nod:



Taqiyya


----------



## Redeye (22 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Ferguson speaks.
> 
> Fires broadsides back his critics
> 
> ...



Actually, the whole point of the rebuttals of his piece was to establish that his arguments are constructed on false assumptions. They don't need to actually address the arguments if they can destroy the foundation upon which such arguments rest. Moreover, when I read it originally, and have reread it since, I fail to see how he's actually constructed any logical support for Romney/Ryan, other than that they're not Obama/Biden.

I find it interesting that some people want to equate Ferguson (a history professor) with Krugman (a Nobel laureate). Krugman's writings are generally related strongly to economic issues, and his opinions and leanings are fairly clear, but he writes to a certain extent from his field of expertise. I'll further concede that Krugman's specialty is international trade and international finance/currency modeling - his books featured prominently in my undergrad for that reason. The two don't really get along, either - Krugman thrashed him in a 2009 debate and it seems they've never really been friendly since.

Are there legitimate critiques of President Obama's first term? Yes, of course. But I don't see them really argued well in the context of "here's what we should have done" in Ferguson's article. Instead, there's just a whole bunch of fallacies, which is why Ferguson's being ripped from all over the spectrum. I did particularly like it being highlighted in one rebuttal that Ferguson has a penchant for making predictions which generally turn out to be wrong.



I'm more interested right now in the impact of Todd Akin's ludicrous statement about how "legitimate rape" victims don't get pregnant as it pertains to the ongoing ludicrous debate over abortion rights in the USA. As the GOP scrambles (well, some of them, others are doubling down on his remarks) to distance themselves from this, it's opening up yet another avenue for the Democrats to attack them on women's issues. I don't see how this one is a winner for them either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Actually, the whole point of the rebuttals of his piece was to establish that his arguments are constructed on false assumptions. They don't need to actually address the arguments if they can destroy the foundation upon which such arguments rest. Moreover, when I read it originally, and have reread it since, I fail to see how he's actually constructed any logical support for Romney/Ryan, other than that they're not Obama/Biden.
> 
> I find it interesting that some people want to equate Ferguson (a history professor) with Krugman (a Nobel laureate). Krugman's writings are generally related strongly to economic issues, and his opinions and leanings are fairly clear, but he writes to a certain extent from his field of expertise. I'll further concede that Krugman's specialty is international trade and international finance/currency modeling - his books featured prominently in my undergrad for that reason. The two don't really get along, either - Krugman thrashed him in a 2009 debate and it seems they've never really been friendly since.
> 
> Are there legitimate critiques of President Obama's first term? Yes, of course. But I don't see them really argued well in the context of "here's what we should have done" in Ferguson's article. Instead, there's just a whole bunch of fallacies, which is why Ferguson's being ripped from all over the spectrum. I did particularly like it being highlighted in one rebuttal that Ferguson has a penchant for making predictions which generally turn out to be wrong ...




Maybe because Ferguson became a noteworthy historian for writing about economic history ... his body of work gives his opinions some weight.







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




One can, I often do, disagree with Ferguson's conclusions but, speaking broadly, they are neither "a bunch of fallacies" nor "generally wrong," no more, at least, than are Krugman's conclusions on same topics.


----------



## Redeye (22 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One can, I often do, disagree with Ferguson's conclusions but, speaking broadly, they are neither "a bunch of fallacies" nor "generally wrong," no more, at least, than are Krugman's conclusions on same topics.



His arguments in this particular piece work heavily on fallacy and using ridiculous statistics (like making comparisons which include time before President Obama took office!), however, which is why he's getting thrashed from myriad sources. He talks about how China's GDP growth is going to take it above the US, without highlighting that it has four times the population, and that it's only reasonable that will happen in due course, regardless of who's in office. Per capita GDP is a the more relevant number. The "generally wrong" was what one author describe his predictions (like rampant inflation a couple of years ago) as being.

My conclusion, though, is that even if one accepts his position about President Obama, he has not in any way built a case to support Romney beyond him being the other candidate. And Romney-Ryan in particular may be a tough sell to some Republicans, especially as we get closer to November, because Romney will likely have to distance himself from Ryan's ideas about Medicare. Some GOP pundits were suggesting that Ryan being chosen as VP candidate would have made President Obama's campaign team nervous, there is however a good chance they're actually quite happy about it.

The interesting follow-on discussion I had with my wife over my leave was about who will replace President Obama to run in 2016. I don't know who in the Democratic Party will be most suited to follow him - but looking at his rise, whoever it is will have to start making a name for themselves pretty soon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> His arguments in this particular piece work heavily on fallacy and using ridiculous statistics (like making comparisons which include time before President Obama took office!), however, which is why he's getting thrashed from myriad sources. He talks about how China's GDP growth is going to take it above the US, without highlighting that it has four times the population, and that it's only reasonable that will happen in due course, regardless of who's in office. Per capita GDP is a the more relevant number. The "generally wrong" was what one author describe his predictions (like rampant inflation a couple of years ago) as being.
> 
> My conclusion, though, is that even if one accepts his position about President Obama, he has not in any way built a case to support Romney beyond him being the other candidate. And Romney-Ryan in particular may be a tough sell to some Republicans, especially as we get closer to November, because Romney will likely have to distance himself from Ryan's ideas about Medicare. Some GOP pundits were suggesting that Ryan being chosen as VP candidate would have made President Obama's campaign team nervous, there is however a good chance they're actually quite happy about it.
> 
> The interesting follow-on discussion I had with my wife over my leave was about who will replace President Obama to run in 2016. I don't know who in the Democratic Party will be most suited to follow him - but looking at his rise, whoever it is will have to start making a name for themselves pretty soon.




Thank you for your opinion, but the reason he is being "thrashed from myriad sources" is because he has dared to challenge the Obama _narrative_ ... it's all about partisan politics and Ferguson is against Obama and his critics are for Obama. Neither logic nor statistics matter even one iota.


----------



## Redeye (22 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thank you for your opinion, but the reason he is being "thrashed from myriad sources" is because he has dared to challenge the Obama _narrative_ ... it's all about partisan politics and Ferguson is against Obama and his critics are for Obama. Neither logic nor statistics matter even one iota.



The whole thing is that it doesn't challenge the actual narrative. It challenges a fantasy that Ferguson has constructed - a fiction.


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The whole thing is that it doesn't challenge the actual narrative. It challenges a fantasy that Ferguson has constructed - a fiction.



Do you mean like Obama's books, his so called life story, the ones  with all the invented characters?


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2012)

From the "Obama has a gift for economics" file. . . .

"On the campaign trail, Barack Obama’s signature definition of “success” is the government bailout of General Motors. “I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he told an audience in Pueblo, CO last week. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” That pronouncement should send a shiver up the spine of every American, due to an inconvenient reality: according to Forbes Magazine, GM is likely headed for bankruptcy all over again.

The numbers are stark. The 500,000 shares of GM stock, comprising 26 percent of the company owned by the government–or more accurately the American taxpayer–sold for $20.21 on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock representing an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion. Even worse, in order to reach the break-even point, the stock would have to sell for around $53 per share."

The really, really scary part is that Obama believes he should do to all sectors of the American economy what he did to GM.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/obamas-gm-success-story-headed-for-bankruptcy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FrontpageMag+%28FrontPage+Magazine+»+FrontPage%29


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The whole thing is that it doesn't challenge the actual narrative. It challenges a fantasy that Ferguson has constructed - a fiction.



I'm so glad that you can comment with such (uninformed) certainty without (evidently) bothering to read the Ferguson article; I think these bits "challenge the narrative" pretty bloody effectively:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html


> "In his [_Obama's_] fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.
> 
> Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
> 
> ...




You're welcome.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2012)

Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

By the way, I agree with Niall Ferguson that _"Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency ... but he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination ..._ [and]_ he brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience - both in the business world and in executive office - that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago ... and by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that - unlike Obama - he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces."_

We, Canadians, _care_ about the next US president because he, it will be one of two men, will make decisions (of commission or omission) that will sideswipe us. We should wish that the choice our American friends will make will be between two _heavyweights_; sadly it will not be - we will get a seasoned, professional _lightweight_ (Romney) or four more years of an amateur _featherweight_ (Obama).


----------



## Redeye (22 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're welcome.



Thanks. I'd read it long ago. A few times, because I couldn't believe Newsweek published it at first glance, and then wanted to try to understand the arguments. Then all the fact checks came out, several of which are quite good.

Perhaps then I should steer you to this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-factcheck-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/

It takes apart several of the key arguments. Including the dateshifting. And the automatic spending cut deal. And the fact that Ferguson doesn't cite a source on his claims about median household incomes but that one of the more credible sources does and they are half what he claims? That rather than make reasoned arguments against PPACA, or what's happened with unemployment, he makes exaggerated claims. That he outright lies about the impact of Obamacare/PPACA on the deficit. That the whole thing is full of cognitive dissonance that rivals what's coming out of the Romney camp (as cupper alluded to). It explains why his assessment of the "fiscal gap" is a ridiculous prediction (because it assumes a 70 year timeline!) It also hacks into how debt-to-GDP, not debt-to-revenue is what matters.

There's also this which is more concise. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/as-a-harvard-alum-i-apologize/261308/

The fact is, Ferguson doesn't present much in the way of cogent arguments, and he makes arguments that are disingenuous - and I'm sure he knew that.

I find myself particularly curious about the claim that Romney is a courageous leader. So courageous that he seems incapable of sticking to a position on just about anything. I don't know that he's presented anything that's particularly courageous, except maybe bringing out Paul Ryan, whose medicare ideas are already causing a backlash in some GOP circles. We'll see how it turns out.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2012)

As Edward says, it isn't about facts but about the "narrative". The US employment graph is pretty compelling "fact", since it clearly shows the assumptions and predictions of the Administration, as well as the actual results (so compelling that Instapundit, one of the most widely read blogs in the world, now posts it every day), yet when it is brought up it is ignored or passed over. I notice that none of the Administrations supporters (on ANY forum) will ever speak to the graphic, most likely because the two solid lines "were" the narrative in 2008, but arer not the narrative now.

The Washington examiner does a similar job here on the GM bailout; the conclusion is pretty straightforward and obvious yet the Administration campaigns on the "success" of the GM bailout (""So now I want to say that what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America. ") without any hard questions or commentary from the Legacy media.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2012)

Having read Krugman and Sullivan's responses and a handful of derived blog posts, I surmise that few - none of which I am aware - of the rebuttals which touch on the employment criticism will directly admit to the incontrovertible point that employment has not recovered, or even come close.  They continue to hide behind the false notion that Obama's accomplishments can only be measured relative to conditions as they existed on Obama's inauguration day.  That is either egregiously sloppy thinking or the abdication of rigour in favour of partisanship.  Every president must address issues which started before he took office.

Ferguson's article is not a bunch of fallacies.  The fallacies lie in the minds of people who introduce their own assumptions about what is to be measured and then demonstrate that Ferguson's conclusions are inappropriate to the new set of premises.  But new premises == different argument.

The "logical" case for Romney/Ryan is that they have proposals different from the administration's, while the administration favours continuation of policies which have not restored employment or reduced the deficit back to pre-recession levels.  The administration has had enough time to pursue its ideology, and has failed; it is time to try something different.  That is the fundamental point.  There is the way things were pre-recession, and the way things are now almost four years into a new administration.  No amount of clever finger-pointing and calendar-slicing can conceal the difference.

And Todd Akin's blunder is his, not anyone else's, to disavow or embrace.  No person with an intellectual backbone should expect any other person to personally answer for Akin.  However, the Democratic Party and its supporters are nothing if not reliable in their readiness to jettison their supposed principles in favour of partisanship.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2012)

>Including the dateshifting.

I assume you wish to be counted among the people who think Obama, as a president of the US, is not responsible for addressing issues that began before he took office.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2012)

>It takes apart several of the key arguments...And the automatic spending cut deal.

You keep writing as if the rebuttals to Ferguson's essay are accurate, factual, and meaningful, but many are not.  The correct response to Ferguson's point about Simpson-Bowles is "true", not to hide behind "tu quoque".  Do you see who is guilty of fallacious thinking there?  If not, explain which parts of the following are untrue or a misrepresentation:

---

"Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no "grand bargain" with the House Republicans--which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output." 

---

"thrashed from myriad sources" is just a measure of noise.  The fact the dial is set to 11 is irrelevant.


----------



## Redeye (22 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Having read Krugman and Sullivan's responses and a handful of derived blog posts, I surmise that few - none of which I am aware - of the rebuttals which touch on the employment criticism will directly admit to the incontrovertible point that employment has not recovered, or even come close.  They continue to hide behind the false notion that Obama's accomplishments can only be measured relative to conditions as they existed on Obama's inauguration day.  That is either egregiously sloppy thinking or the abdication of rigour in favour of partisanship.  Every president must address issues which started before he took office.



The one I posted above did. Its initial argument was that Ferguson could have made a reasoned argument but failed to do so.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And Todd Akin's blunder is his, not anyone else's, to disavow or embrace.  No person with an intellectual backbone should expect any other person to personally answer for Akin.  However, the Democratic Party and its supporters are nothing if not reliable in their readiness to jettison their supposed principles in favour of partisanship.



So, they're like Republicans? Well, I'm glad that's cleared up at least. Interestingly, no one is expecting anyone to answer for Akin, but rather to rebuke him. Romney did, sort of. But the fact that there hasn't been widespread revulsion, and that some have even defended him, highlights a way that the GOP's view can be framed. And I don't see that working out well for them.


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2012)

Funny how Akin gets savaged for a stupid rape comment while Whoppi Goldberg, a much bigger celebrity and dyed in the wool Obama/Democrat supporter sits on The View set and defends a 43 year man raping a 13 year old girl by saying sometimes rape "isn't rape-rape".   

Obama hadn't appeared before the Washington Press Press Corps for months. Months while his vacuous Foreign Policy stands idle and mute and Egypt violates the Peace Treaty with Israel by moving heavy armor into the  Sinai  and making nicey with Hamas in Gaza and supplying longer range rockets to the Terrorists,  the Iranians threatening Saudi Arabia, the revival of Japanese nationalism over  some Pacific Ocean rocks, the Syrian situation now out of control, bombs going  off in Turkey . . .   yadda, yadda, yadda.

Obama had time during all this happening to give interviews to Entertainment Tonight about his  pal George Clooney but couldn't find time to take questions from the WHPC.

Until Akin proves he has his head stuck  up his arse and all of a sudden Obama finds time to crash the daily Carney Press Briefing/Going Show and wax poetic about rape is rape.  Let's hope he called Whoppi to straighten her out.

Crass politics at the very best.  Leading a country rapidly approaching a fiscal cliff and in charge of a foreign policy that has been an abject  failure and all of a sudden he has time and encourages his media pals to get all hot and bothered over some stupid comment from a Senate candidate. A cheap political diversion that only provides cover for him to avoid dealing with the  serious issues facing America.

I am starting to think if this is the best Americans can hope for, they deserve an Obama second term.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Leading a country rapidly approaching a fiscal cliff and in charge of a foreign policy that has been an abject  failure and all of a sudden he has time and encourages his media pals to get all hot and bothered over some stupid comment from a Senate candidate. A cheap political diversion that only provides cover for him to avoid dealing with the  serious issues facing America.



:goodpost:


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2012)

>The one I posted above did.

If you mean O'Brien's, he made several of the errors of which I wrote.


----------



## Redeye (23 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Including the dateshifting.
> 
> I assume you wish to be counted among the people who think Obama, as a president of the US, is not responsible for addressing issues that began before he took office.



No, I'm not. Nor do I know of anyone who is. He has to address those issues, yes, but that is not the same as attributing them to him. The most concise summation of it is this: he volunteered to become Captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, and didn't have a crew all working to save the ship either, especially after the midterm elections. He had a GOP deadlocked Congress that forgot what its job is and decided merely to work to worsen partisanship. We'll see how the public views that particularly in House elections in November.


----------



## Haletown (23 Aug 2012)

That is a lovely fairytale   . . .  that he "volunteers" to captain a doomed ship of state is so very, very heroic.  

Here's another one . . . 

Once upon a time there was a man who wanted to be the leader of a great but troubled nation. He told the citizens that if they voted for him he would right the troubled ship of state by cutting the nation killing deficit spending in half, that he would go through the budget line by line and eliminate programs and regulations that prevented growth and limited opportunities.  

So the people believed him, or at least the him that he presented in his fairy tale autobiographies (they never wondered why a 50 year old need two autobiographies, but I digress).  And the national media, renowned for digging through garbage bins and doing whatever to vet candidates from  fly over country, went along with the fairy tale candidate because  it was the right thing to do and  citizens don't need the truth to get in the way of the who the national media wanted to be the new ship’s captain.

And so the people trusted  him and freely voted to make him the captain.  And once he sat in the captain’s chair, he decided to do things differently than what he promised, that he was so smart he could pick the winners and losers and then he found out he could spend money like a drunk sailor on shore leave.  Well not exactly, because a drunk sailor spends his own money and the new ship's captain was just borrowing and printing money to spend.

And the last page of this fairy tale is a picture.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2012)

>He had a GOP deadlocked Congress that forgot what its job is and decided merely to work to worsen partisanship.

Bullsh!t.  2008-2010 could have been legacy gravy for a president who undertook what needed to be done rather than what he wanted to do.  Obama chose the latter and burned his ships on the shoreline - "I won" - during which time his supporters stood firmly behind the idea that the minority Republicans would have to be the supplicants.

Consider what other presidents did: Reagan went to O'Neill, Clinton went to Gingrich, Bush went to Kennedy.

It is now Obama's turn to swallow his considerable ego and see whether he can grovel enough to atone for his arrogance, twist the arms of the equally obstructionist Democrats in Senate, and get something useful done.


----------



## Haletown (23 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >He had a GOP deadlocked Congress that forgot what its job is and decided merely to work to worsen partisanship.
> 
> Bullsh!t.  2008-2010 could have been legacy gravy for a president who undertook what needed to be done rather than what he wanted to do.  Obama chose the latter and burned his ships on the shoreline - "I won" - during which time his supporters stood firmly behind the idea that the minority Republicans would have to be the supplicants.



Careful Brad . . .  inflicting facts on the fairy tale crew might be too much for them to handle and the consequences of putting them into an infinite cognitive dissonance Do-Loop might just auger them deeper into denial, to a point where reality is but a fleeting memory.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2012)

An interesting article, with a useful graphic, in this month's _Foreign Affairs_ at America The Undertaxed by Andrea Louise Campbell of MIT:



> America the Undertaxed
> *U.S. Fiscal Policy in Perspective*
> 
> By Andrea Louise Campbell
> ...


More on Article link - but for subscribers only







There IS room for _Simpson-Bowles_ type _revenue_ reform which can be had, without raising taxes, by simplifying the US Tax Code. 

There IS, also, room, in Canada, for corporate tax cuts.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Aug 2012)

It would be interesting to cross reference that data with GDP per capita, to have a more pertinent frame of reference


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2012)

I wonder if the Dems really know what they are doing by enlisting Bill CLinton to campaign? He is , after all, the guy who told the assembled press that "I'm the only person in the room who presented three balanced budgets" and makes other helpful comments to contrast his Presidency with the currrent Administration. 

The other part that could be considered a miscalculation is the message which is at odds with the reality that Americans are seeing daily. High unelmployment (U3 at 11% means that more than one in ten Americans are unemployed, so the odds are very good that every voter knows at least one unemployed person in their family or circle of friends; if you go to U6 [unemployed and involuntarily underemployed] which is over 14% then the odds become far greater, and minority and youth unemployment pushing 20% and beyond [depending on the demographic breakdown you use]) means key voting blocks are being fed a message at varience to their actual experience.

Of course extra stressors like food and fuel inflation simply stick a fork in the electorate, despite the almost non stop negative campaigning against Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan people might decide the better course of action is to vote "against" the incumbents who caused so much misery rather than "for" the challengers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-obamas-delicate-balancing-act-on-the-economy/2012/08/23/65d1bf26-ed0d-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html



> *The Morning Plum: The Obama campaign’s theory of the presidential race*
> By Greg Sargent
> 
> Should President Obama be trying to persuade voters that the economy is recovering?
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to cross reference that data with GDP per capita, to have a more pertinent frame of reference




Your wish is my command ...  

(Any transcription errors are my fault)


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2012)

Time on my hands.....

Tax vs GDP vs Tax Revenue vs Takehome vs Tax/km2

The big number for me is the $/km2 number.  That is a two edged sword.  The Netherlands generates over $6,000,000 / km2 while Canada only generates $39,000 / km2. That means that the Netherlands has 150 times the revenue available to service 1 km2 that Canada does.  

Even if Canada concentrated its revenues on servicing just the arable lands (about 8% of the area and the majority of the population) it would still only have about $480,000 / km2 available to supply services.  The Dutch could still outspend us 12 to 1 in highways, rail, canals, electricity, gas, pipelines..... or distribute costs so that they would only cost the individual Dutchman somewhere between 1 and 8% of what they cost a Canadian.

That too has an impact on competitiveness.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2012)

While I found little correlation between total tax revenues and GDP, and despite Kirkhill's very interesting per km2 analysis, I think there is a good explanation - it is on the spreadsheet below and it shows a strong correlation between GDP and transparency (honesty) in government, as reported by Transparency International ~ and those who know me will not be surprised that I looked there for data.

I added one country and one quasi-independent territory that Prof Campbell omitted: Singapore and Hong Kong, because of their high standing on the Transparency Index and high _per capita_ GDP.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2012)

Another insightful measurement is PPP of GDP (year-by-year - absolute or per capita - GDP in amounts adjusted to match an arbitrary year).  What those figures reveal is that 20% of GDP is worth increasingly more over time in relative as well as absolute terms.  The calls for tax take to remain pegged to some fixed percentage of GDP (even those who choose a lower rather than higher figure) are basically calls to ratchet up tax revenues irrespective of need.


----------



## Haletown (24 Aug 2012)

Questions that the Presidential Debate Moderators will, never, never ask Obama . . . but if it was me, I would just to watch him squirm :nod:



(1) Mr. President, you speak frequently of "fairness," of doing one's "fair share," and so on.  Of course, "fairness" is an abstract concept.  Furthermore, it is not a political system.  Rather, it expresses the intended result of one political system or other, depending on how one defines "fairness."  For example, one might say that the free market promotes fairness, if by fairness we mean that everyone has what he is able to earn by his own effort, with his own talent, and through uncoerced interaction with others.  On the other hand, a socialist would define fairness as everyone getting an equal share of the available material wealth, by means of continuously regulated and maintained government redistribution.

So I would like you to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by fairness, and which politico-economic system -- the free market, socialism, or some other system -- is most conducive to your understanding of fairness.  In short, is freedom or socialism fairer, in your view, and why?

(2) The American founders, following John Locke and others, were strong defenders of property rights.  Specifically, they believed, as Locke explained, that all human beings inviolably own themselves as individual material beings, and hence that the product of their effort and voluntary exchange with others belongs to them, by extension from their initial and natural ownership of their own bodies and minds.

Various federal government programs and regulations you support, such as ObamaCare and many EPA initiatives, fly in the face of this notion of a natural right to property.  Do you believe in private property as a right?  And if so, on what grounds do you believe that this right can be violated?

(3) We know that your father, whose dreams you famously claim to have inherited, was a prominent Kenyan socialist, and that your mentor in your youth, Frank Marshall Davis, was an avowed communist.  We also know that your longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has deeply anti-American convictions; that Bill Ayers, who enthusiastically supported your election in 2008, and with whom you have had some kind of personal relationship for many years, has been openly dedicated to the demise of the American political system for his entire adult life; that you have appointed several avowed socialists, communists, admirers of Mao, and celebrators of May Day to significant positions within your administration; and that prior to running for president you frequently described yourself and your interests as "progressive," which is a well-known alternative name for "socialist."

Furthermore, you have spoken frequently of government as an agent of "sharing the prosperity" (see here) and of "fundamentally transforming" America; your wife said your nomination was the first time she was ever proud of America; and you famously boasted in your 2008 victory speech that "change has come to America." 

We know, in short, that you were involved in socialist or progressive thinking and causes prior to running for president, and that you have had extensive and seemingly formative associations with socialists and communists who were fundamentally critical of America, from your childhood through to your adult life prior to 2008.  The question, Mr. President, is: have you disavowed this thinking and these causes, and if so, when and why did you do so?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/debate_questions_obama_wont_be_asked.html#ixzz24TtlOZ3N


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2012)

I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to.  He'd easily fit in with the Conservative Party up here in Canada.

That just tells me that many American's don't know what socialism is or have a very black/white view of wealth redistribution.


----------



## Redeye (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to.  He'd easily fit in with the Conservative Party up here in Canada.
> 
> That just tells me that many American's don't know what socialism is or have a very black/white view of wealth redistribution.



That's been my observation as well.


----------



## Haletown (24 Aug 2012)

I will happily contribute so you guys can replace your rose colored glasses with some clear lenses . . .  but you get to believe anything you want to.   ;D

I don't recall PM Harper, or any CPC leadership types being a leading student marxist at university, joining a political party (NEW) that is marxist light he is very strongly strongly pro union. 

We would have strung Harper  up in effigy if he had ever run four years of deficits that would have been in the $150 Billion dollar range - equivalent to what Obama has and is doing to the US economy.  Gawd our media and opposition skinned him raw and roasted him hot for  hitting a $50 billion deficit in one year.

Obama is a pro big Unions,  pro big government big intrusive government.  Conservatives in Canada, especially Harper Conservatives are not.

Now Obama would be happy as a clam sitting in the NDP caucus and could spend a lot of agreeable time with Lizzy May & the Greenies, but he'd be a very out of water clam at the CPC caucus meting.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know why Obama is associated with "socialism" to the degree that his opposition so often takes it to.



Well, there is this:



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> (3) We know that your father, whose dreams you famously claim to have inherited, was a prominent Kenyan socialist, and that your mentor in your youth, Frank Marshall Davis, was an avowed communist.  We also know that your longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has deeply anti-American convictions; that Bill Ayers, who enthusiastically supported your election in 2008, and with whom you have had some kind of personal relationship for many years, has been openly dedicated to the demise of the American political system for his entire adult life; that you have appointed several avowed socialists, communists, admirers of Mao, and celebrators of May Day to significant positions within your administration; and that prior to running for president you frequently described yourself and your interests as "progressive," which is a well-known alternative name for "socialist."
> 
> Furthermore, you have spoken frequently of government as an agent of "sharing the prosperity" (see here) and of "fundamentally transforming" America; your wife said your nomination was the first time she was ever proud of America; and you famously boasted in your 2008 victory speech that "change has come to America."
> 
> ...



As well as the highly documented comments about "Spreading the wealth around" and "You didn't build that", which are not indicative of a free market or "Classical Liberal" philosophy or approach to governance.


----------



## Redeye (24 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As well as the highly documented comments about "Spreading the wealth around" and "You didn't build that", which are not indicative of a free market or "Classical Liberal" philosophy or approach to governance.



You have just provided ample evidence in support of Infanteer's statement. Thanks.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> I will happily contribute so you guys can replace your rose colored glasses with some clear lenses . . .  but you get to believe anything you want to.   ;D



 :boring:

Ain't no rose-coloured glasses here buds, but take a look in the mirror.  I ain't the one with sore hands from beating the dead horse for 69 pages in this thread.

America's right/left centre line is far more to the right than Canada's, which is why I laugh when I hear "socialist" chucked around.  "Pro-union, pro big-government and pro-intrusive government" implies different things south of the border.  "Intrusive government" in Canada is forcing gun-owners to register their long-guns.  "Intrusive government" in the United States is asking for ID before allowing someone to order 10,000 rounds of linked machinegun ammo.  If we shipped the NDP to the U.S., McCarthy would rise from the grave and Democrats would likely be calling for their heads.  

You cite Obama's economic policies, but I can flip open a Macleans to find the same critiques of our government and its approach to spending during the recession and over the last couple budgets (ie: not conservative enough).  Obamacare is socialist?  The Conservative Party isn't getting rid of our national health care system.  Gays in the military?  The CPC legislated gay marriage.  Has Obama touched anything related to the 2nd Amendment?  The CPC got rid of the long-gun registry, but I don't see carry/concealed permits or a relaxation on restricted/prohibited weapons.

He'd have no troubles in the Conservative Party but would probably be a better fit in the Liberals since he appears to flounder and not get much done at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2012)

:goodpost:

and

 :ditto:


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You have just provided ample evidence in support of Infanteer's statement. Thanks.



Rather than tap dance around the issue or avoid it altogether (as in the unemployment example); kindly explain how the President's statements made during the campaign(s) are in any way consistent with "Classical Liberalism" or the free market?

I expect the usual barrage of non answers and possibly _argumentum ad hominem_, but anyone who is looking at these questions and examples will probably come to a similar conclusion to people like Brad, Haletown and myself.

WRT where the Left/Right divide is, when discussing American politics you need to make your arguments from where the line is there; not where it is here or anywhere else.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2012)

So Obama and the Democrats are not socialists.  They are also, sticking to the classical definition, not liberals.  They are obviously not marxists, communists, fascists, etc.  But every time someone tries to paste a label on the moderate left-of-centre, it seems that the label is misapplied.  That prompts the question: what are they?

What everyone overlooks in the rush to absolve the Democratic Party of socialism is that - correctly or incorrectly - the label "socialist" is applied as sloppily as the label "liberal" to those who favour tax-and-spend policies in the US.  "Socialist" and "liberal" mean different things in Canada and Europe.  Democrats disfavour the "socialist" label because it has negative connotations from events of the 1930s and 1940s, while they favour the label "liberal" because it has positive connotations from the century or so leading up to the establishment of the US.

"Socialist" or "liberal", there doesn't really seem to be any misunderstanding in the US that it means "tax-and-spend".


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That prompts the question: what are they?



Fools?


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Aug 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fools?










Now, all joking aside, I'm not certain if Mr. Obama is fit to run the country.  It appears to me that he's more interested in appearing to run the country.  I suppose that once he got the job, he suddenly realised that it was a lot more work than he anticipated.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2012)

"Walt".  He wants to march in the parade and bask in the attention, but not necessarily to do the hard work of getting there.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2012)

While there are plenty of people who believe social media is the next big thing in politics (see here), the danger is the same as with almost any other interaction on the Internet: who exactly is on the other end of the connection? Presumably many people "follow" because they seek to join a crowd. Manipulating the behaviour of crowds can generate effects (although often with many unintended consequences).

Manipulating metrics to influence people is old hat, here is the 21rst century version as applied to Twitter:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDg7uRyHdg9



> *Obama has millions of fake Twitter followers*
> Comments
> By David Jackson, USA TODAY
> Updated 11h 1m ago
> ...


----------



## Redeye (25 Aug 2012)

Large numbers of inactive twitter followers is a meaningless statistic. The vast majority of twitter accounts, I'd wager, are inactive. People join, follow some famous people, and don't really get it, so the accounts become inactive. Interesting that article headlines with "Obama has millions of fake followers" when i suspect a check would suggest a relatively similar proportion of inactive following accounts for both. But hey, it's the "legacy media" or whatever you're calling it these days, so who really cares?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2012)

A not really surprising fissure has open up inside the GOP as reported in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/former-gop-governors-obama-endorsement-throws-the-right-a-curveball/article4500765/


> Former GOP governor’s Obama endorsement throws the right a curveball
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> Tampa, Florida — The Globe and Mail
> ...




The _moderate_ Republicans, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) they are called by the right wing, really have little choice but to leave - before they are kicked out. But this is the _Eisenhower_ wing of the party, which Ronald Reagan managed to keep onside, with which George HW Bush (41) identified and which even George W Bush (43) placated (by e.g. making Colin Powell his first Secretary of State), and it should not be tossed aside too lightly. If the _moderate_ Republicans cannot accept Romney/Ryan then how will the _Independents_ go?


----------



## Haletown (27 Aug 2012)

So an ex Republican who is against abortion, pro gun,  pro business-anti union, anti ObamaCare has gone off the reservation and will speak at the DNC ?

They must be desperate.  Has anyone told Obama?

But don't tell Konrad . . . he has been on a comedy roll recently.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2012)

That article may be slanted.  From reading it, one would think that Jeb Bush is behind the Democrats.  He may have said that which is stated above, but he also said this:



> (CNN) – Jeb Bush, the Republican former governor of Florida, said Sunday it's time for President Barack Obama to stop blaming the ailing economy on President George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor and Jeb Bush’s brother.
> 
> While conceding that Obama did inherit a tough economy when he took office in 2008, *Bush said that Obama’s policies have hindered the country's economic growth.*



This doesn't say that he's behind the GOP, but it does contrast well against the above.

Source


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That article may be slanted.  From reading it, one would think that Jeb Bush is behind the Democrats.  He may have said that which is stated above, but he also said this:
> 
> This doesn't say that he's behind the GOP, but it does contrast well against the above.
> 
> Source




Bush is positioning himself for 2016; his working assumption is that Obama sneaks through in 2012 and faces a divided Congress, again, and again in 2014. By 2016, he's guessing that fiscally _conservative_ Democrats and _moderate_ Republicans will capture the White House (him), Senate and House.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2012)

I doubt that another member of the Bush family will be President. As much as I like the family they arent the Kennedy's[I dont see one of them being elected Prez either].


----------



## GAP (27 Aug 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I doubt that another member of the Bush family will be President. As much as I like the family they arent the Kennedy's[I dont see one of them being elected Prez either].



They were saying the same thing about GW also....what else is there in the Republican fold....not much...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2012)

After Romney I suspect a future President will come from the ranks of Governors.They will have to wait until Ryan has had his shot. The bench strength on the Democrat side is pretty shallow. The democrats have painted themselves as the party of the left,and the american people as a whole are fairly conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

My perception, as an outsider, is that the Democrats have already _morphed_ into something Harry Truman or even Jimmy Carter would hardly recognize - I suspect that even Bill Clinton is somewhat dismayed; the GOP seems headed in the same direction. This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ seems to illustrate that the Republicans are "eating their seed grain:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/ron-paul-delegates-bring-the-ruckus-to-romneys-party/article4504246/


> Ron Paul delegates bring the ruckus to Romney’s party
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> TAMPA, FLA. — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If the _moderates_ are being pushed out and if they stay home in November, and if the young, enthusiastic Ron Paul _libertarians_ are also shoved aside and also stay home on election day, then who is left to come out and support Mitt Romney? The religious right? They are already suspicious and less than enthusiastic. The "Tea Party?" They don't, really, trust him either. Those who believe that no black man should ever be POTUS? Yes, I guess they'll come out ...


----------



## observor 69 (28 Aug 2012)

For amusement:

Where Do You Fit?

The US Political Party Test

LINK


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> For amusement:
> 
> Where Do You Fit?
> 
> ...




You will (probably) not be surprised to learn that I am a either an *Average Independent* or a Moderate Republican:







Overall I fall about halfway between "Average Independent" and "Moderate Republican;" on Economic Issues I am to the right of the "Average Republican" and, in fact, quite close to a "Conservative Republican;" but on Social Issues I fall quite close to "Very Liberal."

Canadian, eh?  


Edit: formatting - which 'concealed' two words


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Aug 2012)

I scored far to the right.  Further than the Tea Party.   Where do I sign for my SS uniform?  :-\


Of course I take these tests with a very large grain of salt.


----------



## observor 69 (28 Aug 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I scored far to the right.  Further than the Tea Party.   Where do I sign for my SS uniform?  :-\
> 
> 
> Of course I take these tests with a very large grain of salt.



Seek help NOW !   ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Aug 2012)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Seek help NOW !   ;D


Because of the salt?  ;D


----------



## cupper (28 Aug 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Because of the salt?  ;D



Yeah, go with that.


----------



## Bass ackwards (28 Aug 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I scored far to the right.  Further than the Tea Party.   Where do I sign for my SS uniform?  :-\



Uh oh... where's that uniform shop at Herr Hauptman ? 

Geez, the CBC was right. Who knew...?


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2012)

All this talk of "where will the moderates go" is peculiar.  Mitt Romney is the moderate candidate.  His true nature is closer to the political centre than that of Barack Obama, who wears a moderate facade only when it confers a personal political advantage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> All this talk of "where will the moderates go" is peculiar.  Mitt Romney is the moderate candidate.  His true nature is closer to the political centre than that of Barack Obama, who wears a moderate facade only when it confers a personal political advantage.




I agree, but he has had to campaign father and father to the _right_ to win the nomination and, I guess, to keep the GOP "base" onside.


----------



## Redeye (28 Aug 2012)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> For amusement:
> 
> Where Do You Fit?
> 
> ...



That put me slightly left of the average Democrat, but it's a pretty narrow span of questions. I suspect being an atheist and for marriage equality pretty much negated the more conservative answers I had. But there's not really enough questions to make a fair assessment.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2012)

Unsurprisingly, I am almost smack in the middle with average independents, leaning just to the right a bit.

My economic outlook was far to the right, more than an average republican while my social outlook was at the farthest edge to the left - I guess because I ain't bothered by gay marriage and didn't believe in God I was considered a socialist....


----------



## Journeyman (28 Aug 2012)

Between not having a mythical deity to tell me that gays can't marry, while reducing government pestering of those actually working for a living.....my average ended up amongst young Black Hispanics    :stars:

I do remember, however, back when PBS was a _credible_ news provider.


----------



## Sythen (28 Aug 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That put me slightly left of the average Democrat, but it's a pretty narrow span of questions. I suspect being an atheist and for marriage equality pretty much negated the more conservative answers I had. But there's not really enough questions to make a fair assessment.



I was put far right, almost to the Tea Party but also answered for marriage equality and that I am an atheist. Agreed, though, that this is just a fun little thing and by no means a fair assessment. One thing I found interesting is that "Certain Obama" is left of the average Democrat, where "Certain Romney" is bang on average Republican.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Aug 2012)

I guess the "test's" key value is in putting this thread where most of the repetitive posts have been leading it -- Radio Chatter.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Aug 2012)

And I came down all over the place, which maybe is par for the course for a gunner of my generation.

I scored as a conservative Republican overall, but socially I was an average democrat while on the economic side I was very conservative. 

Although I believe in God, I do not feel that other peoples' marriage choices are any business of mine.

Radio chatter indeed!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2012)

A bit of a backstage ook at the GOP convention. I am slightly in awe of the resources devoted to rhetoric, since I am more inclined to look for facts, figures and historical analogies, but my personal leanings are in a minority here in Canada, much less the United States. The art of rhetoric (in the ancient Greek sense of the word) is also more important in the United States, since political oration is a widely admired art in American politics, and good or even great speeches count for a lot:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/08/28/what-counts-as-failure/?singlepage=true



> *What Counts as Failure?*
> August 28, 2012 - 6:34 am - by Roger Kimball
> 
> I spent several hours yesterday in the Tampa Bay Times Forum, the huge hall in which Republican delegates will confer their official blessing upon Mitt Romney later this week. It was an odd day. It was to have been the first full day of conference activities, but the media succeeded in whipping up public hysteria about the weather to such an extent that RNC chairman Reince Priebus decided to err on the side of caution and to reschedule most of Monday’s speeches later in the week.
> ...



As for why we should be interested in history, the real Thucydides wrote:



> The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest, but if it is judged worthy by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content.
> {/quote]


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

*Part 1 of 2*



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A not really surprising fissure has open up inside the GOP as reported in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/former-gop-governors-obama-endorsement-throws-the-right-a-curveball/article4500765/
> 
> The _moderate_ Republicans, RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) they are called by the right wing, really have little choice but to leave - before they are kicked out. But this is the _Eisenhower_ wing of the party, which Ronald Reagan managed to keep onside, with which George HW Bush (41) identified and which even George W Bush (43) placated (by e.g. making Colin Powell his first Secretary of State), and it should not be tossed aside too lightly. If the _moderate_ Republicans cannot accept Romney/Ryan then how will the _Independents_ go?




More on this, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137287/reihan-salam/the-missing-middle-in-american-politics


> The Missing Middle in American Politics
> *How Moderate Republicans Became Extinct*
> 
> By Reihan Salam
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

*Part 2 of 2*




> WEAK TEA
> 
> The rise of the Tea Party movement briefly seemed like an intriguing exception to this general drift. The movement has often been interpreted as a brand of populist conservatism virtually indistinguishable from the supply-side conservatism of the Reagan era. But supply-side economics was an optimistic creed that rejected the idea of the market as a zero-sum game and celebrated a vision of a flourishing society in which everyone should, could, and would be richer, freer, and happier if taxes were low and GDP growth robust. The Tea Party movement offers a far less sunny worldview. Far from inheriting the optimism of the Reagan-era supply-siders, the Tea Party shares more with the Old Right, the earlier form of conservatism that Reaganite supply-siders derided as “root-canal economics” for its emphasis on spending cuts -- and, in some cases, tax increases -- as instruments of hard-nosed fiscal discipline. Like the Old Right, the Tea Party conceives of the United States as divided between those who work hard and play by the rules and those who game the system, whether by engaging in petty welfare fraud or by seeking government favors through lobbying and campaign contributions.
> 
> ...




The author, Reihan Salam is a conservative _commentator_. I agree with his final point: _"Moderate Republicans may no longer exist, but their legacy persists, and conservative Republicans will need to recapture the moderates’ creativity and problem-solving impulses if they ever hope to take power, hold on to it, and govern effectively."_ The current culture wars in America need an armistice.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2012)

Whyizzit that it is the right that is tasked with the splitting of the Nation?

Was it the right that was out in the streets of Detroit and Watts, emulating the Parisiens?
Was it the right calling for People Power demonstrations?
Was it the right out during the Democratic Convention in 1968?
Was it the right that spawned the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Action Direct, and overseas the Bregata Rosso, the RAF and the Baader Meinhoff?

It seems to me that the left dragged the discourse outside of the conventional public arena and also the conventional line of thinking at least concurrently with Barry Goldwater.  If anything Goldwater was merely reacting to the rising tide of "activism" prevalent amongst the young Americans.

To which someone will no doubt raise the Ku Klux Klan.....

To which the rejoinder is the Muslim invasion of Spain was an entirely predictable consequence of the Vandals invading Carthage two hundred years previous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Whyizzit that it is the right that is tasked with the splitting of the Nation?
> ...
> To which the rejoinder is the Muslim invasion of Spain was an entirely predictable consequence of the Vandals invading Carthage two hundred years previous.



To your first point: the _right_ is only being accused of splitting the Republican Party.

To your last point: *Indeed!*


Edit: to fix an embarrassing typo   :-[  now that displaced Scot will want me to stand him a real pint  :crybaby:


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2012)

I scored as an average Republican.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2012)

I found this test quite limiting. For other ways to think about political spectrum's, see Politics with more dimensions


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2012)

Interesting example of narrativefail; watched some very good speeches last night on YouTube from the Republican convention, Mia Love and Dr Rice made some very good speeches. The Legacy Media (in particular NBC) cut away from showing speeches by Mia Love, Artur Davis and Ted Cruz, and the NBC page did not have these speeches posted as of last night. Might deflate the "Rich White Men" narrative...

In the mean time, here is an article from New Geography which probably goes farther to explaining what is happening in US politics than anything I have seen to date:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/003056-the-unseen-class-war-that-could-decide-the-presidential-election



> *The Unseen Class War That Could Decide The Presidential Election *
> by Joel Kotkin 08/29/2012
> 
> Much is said about class warfare in contemporary America, and there’s justifiable anger at the impoverishment of much of the middle and working classes. The Pew Research Center recently dubbed the 2000s a “lost decade” for middle-income earners — some 85% of Americans in that category feel it’s now more difficult to maintain their standard of living than at the beginning of the millennium, according to a Pew survey.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2012)

The visible symbol of The Yeomanry:   Churchill's two fingers - evidence to the Patricians and their Clerics that the yeoman still has two fingers with which to draw the string on his bow.  The fingers have not yet been cut off by vengeful Patricians bound on disarming the independent yeomanry.








The Two Finger Salute


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2012)

Notwithstanding the fact that his last paragraph is arrant nonsense, George Will's column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, offers some very useful insights:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/30/george-f-will-the-great-american-bluff-is-about-to-be-called/


> The great American bluff is about to be called
> 
> George F. Will
> 
> ...




First: Will's thumbnail history of the 'corruption' of the word _liberal_ is instructive; he calls it _*“clientelism,”*_ the idea that one could develop _"policies not just to buy the allegiance of existing groups but to create groups that henceforth would be dependent on government ... liberalism became the politics of creating an electoral majority from a mosaic of client groups ... unions got special legal standing, farmers got crop supports, business people got tariff protection and other subsidies, the elderly got pensions, and so on and on."_ I usually call it _*"statism"*_ and describe it as the (mistaken) idea that government can mimic the private sector and e.g. create jobs and prosperity. 

Second: He is also correct that while _"Twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative as opposed to liberal ... we will know_ [on 6 Nov 12]_ if they mean it ... if they are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal ... if they talk like Jeffersonians but want to be governed by Hamiltonians* ... if their commitment to limited government is rhetorical or actual ..._ [and]_ if it is, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan suspected, a “civic religion, avowed but not constraining.”"_ My guess is that Moynihan is right and if Romney wins it will be by a very, very narrow margin.

_________
* See Walter Russel Mead Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2012)

So, David Koch appears to have some rational thoughts, as opposed to the party he supports:

*David Koch breaks from GOP on gay marriage, taxes, defense cuts*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80483.html?hp=f2



> TAMPA, Fla. – Billionaire industrialist David Koch, who is helping steer millions of dollars to elect Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans, on Thursday told POLITICO he disagrees with the GOP’s stance on gay marriage and believes the U.S. needs to consider raising taxes to balance the budget.
> 
> Koch, who is serving as a delegate to the Republican National Convention from New York, spoke to POLITICO after delivering brief remarks at a reception held in his honor him by Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group he chairs and has helped fund.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2012)

A real WTF situation here. This many people disappearing would have had huge second order effects that would have been a bit difficult to ignore. The other question is where are they now, and are the voting rolls being adjusted to reflect the changing population base? (While there is the inevitable suggestion that these people may never have existed at all, I doubt this is the answer either, after all, marketers [commercal data vendors] had them on file because real people are spending real money somewhere). The chaotic state of voter registration and inability to match people to address via drivers licence or other form of ID has probably contributed greatly to this situation, and hopefully will spur some real reforms in this area.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/victory_lab/2012/08/30/three_fifths_of_milwaukee_s_black_voters_have_vanished_without_a_trace_.html



> *The Case of the Disappearing Black Voter*
> By Sasha Issenberg | Posted Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012, at 10:22 AM ET
> 
> RICHMOND, CA - JUNE 14: Weeds grow past the height of a picket fence in front of an abandoned house. May foreclosure filings surged 9 percent to 205,990 filings, including default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions. The spike is the first monthly increase since January. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2012)

The census showed that urban dwellers moved in search of work. This is bad news for urban centers because with the loss of population they also will lose funding.


----------



## Haletown (31 Aug 2012)

The Democrtic Party has a long history of not being bothered by missing voters.  



  It is the reason they fight voter ID laws so vehemently.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2012)

Yep even the dead vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2012)

An interesting analysis, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, re: who needs to come out and vote in order for Mitt Romney to unseat President Obama:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/vote-of-alienated-democrats-key-to-gop/article4513923/


> Vote of alienated Democrats key to GOP
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> TAMPA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think the last paragraph provides some important clues to the November outcome:

1. The fact that Gov Romney has so much more money than President Obama suggests that President Obama's support has weakened, perhaps badly;

2. We know that advertising works and we also know that money buys good advertising - not necessarily "good = nice and fair" rather "good = *effective* which often = negative; and

3. The so called Reagan Democrats are still there, they are especially white working-class Northerners who are disappointed in President Obama's attitudes and policies and are not inclined to want, much less believe in the "change" he has on offer. They can be "persuaded" by Mr. Rover _et al_, and if they are then I guess it deprives President Obama of an important constituency that voted for him in 2008.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> It is the reason they fight voter ID laws so vehemently.


Maybe they need a "functioning democracy" to help them out....you know, like Iraq or Afghanistan; start marking voters' fingers with purple dye and stuff......  :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2012)

What few people are asking is what would a second term look like? There are many contradictory answers; Obama stated that in a second term "He would like to tackle issues such as climate change, immigration, education and filibuster reform." He told the Russians he would have "more flexibility" in a second term, and also suggested that since the bailout of GM was a "success" (by what metric?) he would like to extend the model to the rest of the American economy.  Promises such as cutting the deficit in half were ditched almost immediatly on achieving office, and his signature achievment of Obamacare is deeply unpopular with almost 60% of Americans.

The Economist asks the question:

http://www.economist.com/node/21561890



> *Four more years?*
> A president who has had a patchy first term now needs to make a convincing case for a second one
> Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2012)

Especially for tomahawk6:

The Democratic Party has come up with their new sign for the 2012 Presidential election.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Sep 2012)

Good one   ;D

Here's another. The empty chair Clint Eastwood talked about.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The census showed that urban dwellers moved in search of work. This is bad news for urban centers because with the loss of population they also will lose funding.



And since the Dems are very much against checking and correcting voter lists and verification via ID, they are now hoist on their own petrard; they cannot even find their own voters. What is odd about the story is although there were indeed people that marketers had identified due to buying patterns, the departure of so many people would have had many second order effects, some good (less traffic and fewer students at schools, allowing more resources/student) and many bad (closure of business as customer bases vanished, vastly reduced tax revenues, squatters moving into abandond properties), all of which should have been noticeable over the past four years. So there is much more to this story than is being reported.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2012)

Axelrod was asked "are people better off now than 4 years ago?" check out his response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDEDvH_bHms&feature=player_embedded


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Sep 2012)

The "empty chair" things seems to be growing legs. Have seen several empty chairs out in front yards, here in Arizona.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Sep 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> The "empty chair" things seems to be growing legs.


Pun intended?  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2012)

Since the economy is the number one issue for the voters, this isn't good news for any Dem seeking office. This is going to get a lot of play on the blogosphere, and silence from the legacy media:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/what-recovery-median-household-income-has-declined-5-during-obamas-so-called-recovery/



> *What Recovery?… Median Household Income Has Declined 5% During Obama’s So-Called Recovery*
> Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 3, 2012, 7:20 AM
> 
> Under Barack Obama: Deep poverty is at record high level, homeless families are on the rise, and the media is silent.
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Sep 2012)

Here's an interesting GOP advert, with soundbytes from the campaign in 2008, and from now.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2012)

Leave Barack Obama Alone… LEAVE HIM ALONE!!

A person knocked off axis by Clint Eastwood (the man still has it....)

Some of the lines are hysterical:  "He couldn't get anything done even though he had a super majority." "All you Republicans care about is freedom..."

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdtUZhz_oGg&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Redeye (4 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Leave Barack Obama Alone… LEAVE HIM ALONE!!
> 
> A person knocked off axis by Clint Eastwood (the man still has it....)
> 
> ...



Actually, most Dems were laughing about Eastwood. I thought it was a pretty pitiful display, to be honest. Clint Eastwood can do better than that. And he's a decent kind of conservative, one I probably share lots of views with. But I don't think he accomplished much for the GOP except making them more rich fodder for the Jon Stewarts of the world, and possibly upstaging Mr. Romney a bit.

The supermajority red herring isn't selling either, I don't think - between the Blue Dogs in the House and the Senate that needed 60 votes for anything to overcome filibusters in large part, this is just another Republican myth. It's not on the same level as the often amusing nonsense that Donald Trump drools out from time to time, but where exactly is their message to the undecided middle or wavering Democrats? That's what I'm not seeing.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Sep 2012)

Sirius radio is an excellent tool, and I got a lot of both sides from CNBC, FOX, CNN, Blomberg and NPR today.  Eastwood's schtick wasn't very good for Romney - even the most battle hardened Republican pundits had to grit to explain that one away and the Democratic pundits are having a field day.

That being said, it'll be old news by tomorrow, so I don't think there is much to take from it other than the fact that Eastwood is getting real old....


----------



## Redeye (4 Sep 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sirius radio is an excellent tool, and I got a lot of both sides from CNBC, FOX, CNN, Blomberg and NPR today.  Eastwood's schtick wasn't very good for Romney - even the most battle hardened Republican pundits had to grit to explain that one away and the Democratic pundits are having a field day.
> 
> That being said, it'll be old news by tomorrow, so I don't think there is much to take from it other than the fact that Eastwood is getting real old....



iPad apps are awesome for that too - though streaming here isn't idea. I think the lasting impact of Eastwood will be basically nil - comedy fodder for a few days and that'll be it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

The GOP seems to have rediscovered its message: *"Are you really better off after four years of Obama?"*

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ President Obama's team is having difficulty is defending his record:



> ... his campaign is struggling to respond to Republican assertions that Americans are worse off than they were four years ago ... the difficulties Mr. Obama’s top strategists have encountered in answering those charges sums up the President’s challenge during the three-day convention that begins here Tuesday. Grassroots Democrats say they are eager for him to tout his accomplishments. But most other voters are still feeling unhappy about the economy and think the country is on the wrong track ... yet, with the jobless rate above 8 per cent, median income down more than $4,000 (U.S.) and the federal debt up by $5-trillion in four years, a nagging question confronts the President as he heads to Charlotte: Are Americans better off than they were four years ago?



This is consistent with what tomahawk6 noted a few days ago: _Team Obama_ wouldn't or, just as likely, couldn't address that simple question: "Is the average American better off that (s)he was four years ago?"


----------



## Redeye (4 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The GOP seems to have rediscovered its message: *"Are you really better off after four years of Obama?"*
> 
> According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ President Obama's team is having difficulty is defending his record:
> 
> This is consistent with what tomahawk6 noted a few days ago: _Team Obama_ wouldn't or, just as likely, couldn't address that simple question: "Is the average American better off that (s)he was four years ago?"



I don't see this being a winner for them. Four years ago the US economy was in freefall, jobs were disappearing by the tens of thousands, people were watching their 401k plans and IRAs evaporate. Now, while jobs aren't appearing fast enough to really fill the need, there are consistently positive reports on job growth numbers. The stock market has recovered strongly (though, again, not enough yet) so people's IRAs are recovering too, and while things aren't "good", I suspect it won't be hard for Democrats to highlight that yes, indeed, things are better than they were. They'll probably stretch that out into a message about potential for improvement highlighting the impact of the most despised Congress in US history (if I recall right), to try to build a case that not only should President Obama win another term, but they should get more seats in the Congress. Whether that will work, well, we'll see.

It's interesting that a lot of conservatives aren't enamored with Romney - which could have two effects that will benefit Democrats. They'll either stay home, or they might vote for a third party candidate - I'm thinking of the Ron Paul set. That could help the Dems a lot - but they also have a fringe that risks the same thing - they'll have to work hard to get the vote out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2012)

I think Romney's _strategy_ needs to focus on the economy, in phases:

1. _Now_, ask the hard question - "Are you, your family, friends and neighbours any better off after four years of Obama?

2. In late Sep/early Oct: focus on specific Obama "problems" - unemployment, _crony capitalism_ misadventures, etc; and

3. In the last three weeks: finally make some specific _proposals_ (after telling Americans that you're not _promising_ much because "we all have to roll up our sleeves and work (and sacrifice) together" etc) to change things for the "better."

The aim should be to put Obama on the defensive and keep him there.


----------



## Haletown (4 Sep 2012)

GOP advertising.

ObamaCare . . .  In one sentence.



http://tinyurl.com/8jfuw6b


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2012)

The start of the DNC marks another historic moment: the US debt surpasses $16 trillion dollars. The unfunded liabilities of course bring the total to astronomical amounts but most people will be startled enough to see the $16 trillion figure. Republican advertising will point out that $5.5 trillion of that was added in the last three years alone; the legacy of the Obama administration:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/09/debt-to-hit-trillion-as-dnc-kicks-off-134307.html



> *Debt to hit $16 trillion as DNC kicks off*
> 
> Comments (49) By MIKE ZAPLER | 9/4/12 11:48 AM EDT
> Bad timing for Democrats: The gross national debt is set to hit $16 trillion Tuesday as the party’s convention gets under way, and Republicans are pouncing.
> ...



Of course there is no economic plan by this administration, even the last budget the Administration proposed to the Congress was defeated by a bipartisan unanimous vote, and the Democrat majority semate has neither proposed or passed a budget in over 1200 days.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Sep 2012)

;D


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The stock market has recovered strongly (though, again, not enough yet) so people's IRAs are recovering too, and while things aren't "good", I suspect it won't be hard for Democrats to highlight that yes, indeed, things are better than they were.


It wouldn't be hard, if they were to lie.

Now, I'm not big into the Huffington Post, but here's an article about the "recovery" of the DOW.  From the article:

The "recovery":







> I would argue that adjusting the DJIA solely for historical consumer price inflation does not tell the whole story. The Consumer Price Index, by definition, can only tell you about historical inflation. Other assets that can act as long stores of wealth move in price not only to reflect historical inflation, but investors' best estimate of future inflation as well. We see that these long maturity assets move up in nominal price reflecting expected future inflation long before consumer prices ever start to move up.
> 
> So, it only seems fair to compare the DJIA as a store of wealth to other long assets to see how it did in preserving its purchasing power relative to these assets. Maybe the Dow's recent run-up in nominal price is just reflecting greater expected inflation in the future similar to what is driving gold and other commodity prices higher.
> 
> Here is a picture that shows how the DJIA has done if priced in gold ounces instead of US dollars:








In Canada, the median income in 2008 was $68,8410.00 (Source [urlhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm]here[/url]) In 2010 it was 69,860.00  (That was the latest year with stats).  That's after tax, and not a huge increase by any stretch.  

In the USA, the median income has contracted.

I'm fairly confident that simple facts will show people that they are not better off than they were four years ago.  When it comes to the coming election, the Dems can only promise more of the same, while trying to scare the voting public into not voting Romney/Ryan.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2012)

Polling is starting to show some real shifting, could this be the start of the "preference cascade" that Instapundit predicted?

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-voters-think-second-term-undeserved



> *The Hill Poll: Voters say second term for Obama undeserved, country is worse off*
> By Sheldon Alberts - 09/04/12 05:00 AM ET
> 
> A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
> ...



Poll data here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/09_september/crosstabs_72412.pdf


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Sep 2012)

This is too early for most Americans. Few will be paying attention until a few weeks before the election. I figure most polls are slanted to favor the democrats. The real numbers wont be out until a week before the election. The media tried this with Bush-Kerry.Even the dem's believed their own polls and were completely shocked when Bush won re-election.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ;D



Hey, if people are going to attack him over the size of the US National Debt, then it is perfectly reasonable to lay the blame at the feed of the person responsible for the policies that wildly inflated it. There is also nothing wrong with highlighting the disaster the Bush presidency was, and using a contrasting approach. It's also legitimate to blame the Congress for failing to work with the President to accomplish anything. Especially when you have people like Mitch McConnell on record saying their own interest was to make the President fail. Let's see how that sells.

Looks like I'm going to be in DC on the big day, should be very interesting to see how it all goes.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Sep 2012)

That seals it.  You *are* delusional.  By your logic then, Clinton is to blame...but that goes back to Bush I, thence to Reagan....ad infinitum.

Or we can lay the blame on the guy who first promised change and then failed to deliver, who is saying verbatim the same message and whose party last night had a message that said "we all belong to the government."

Yep..blame Bush.....


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That seals it.  You *are* delusional.  By your logic then, Clinton is to blame...but that goes back to Bush I, thence to Reagan....ad infinitum.
> 
> Or we can lay the blame on the guy who first promised change and then failed to deliver, who is saying verbatim the same message and whose party last night had a message that said "we all belong to the government."
> 
> Yep..blame Bush.....



The poster is wrong in saying "everything". However, the state of the economy is in no small part directly attributable to policy decisions made during the Bush administration. That simply cannot be denied.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

The current state of the economy goes back to decisions taken in the Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter ... McKinley and Hayes administrations.

The _primary_ impetus for derivatives based on junk mortgages, as just one example, was not financial industry deregulation (which was, largely, but not exclusively, a Republican initiative but which was, also, only an enabler), it was _social engineering_, led by (mostly) Democrats, who wanted to make home ownership easier and easier for low income Americans, their electoral base.

Every president, including Barack Obama, has made economic mistakes - they, and their advisors are, after all, just human; how could they be expected to be perfect? But President Obama has been "on watch" for nearly four years; it is, now, *his* economy and he must answer for it.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Every president, including Barack Obama, has made economic mistakes - they, and their advisors are, after all, just human; how could they be expected to be perfect? But President Obama has been "on watch" for nearly four years; it is, now, *his* economy and he must answer for it.



I'm not suggesting he hasn't made any mistakes. However, the claim that "everything is Bush's fault" is not something he's done - but to argue "nothing is Bush's fault" or that it's in any way wrong to highlight that the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts are the two major contributors to the current budget deficit position and national debt of the United States is absolutely incorrect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting he hasn't made any mistakes. However, the claim that "everything is Bush's fault" is not something he's done - but to argue "nothing is Bush's fault" or that it's in any way wrong to highlight that the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts are the two major contributors to the current budget deficit position and national debt of the United States is absolutely incorrect.



Nonsense ... the US public debt began to grow on Carter's watch and has grown at a steady pace through Democrat and Republican regimes, alike. It appears to have _slowed_, when measured as a % of GDP, during the Clinton adminsitration but only because the US economy was booming. Who caused the boom? Clinton or Reagan before him?


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nonsense ... the US public debt began to grow on Carter's watch and has grown at a steady pace through Democrat and Republican regimes, alike. It appears to have _slowed_, when measured as a % of GDP, during the Clinton adminsitration but only because the US economy was booming. Who caused the boom? Clinton or Reagan before him?



While Reagan's proposed sainthood isn't something I'm a fan of, Clinton did enjoy a booming economy, and more importantly, a time when a GOP Congress actually worked with him to eliminate the deficit, reform welfare, and generally set America on a decent path. Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same? Just for political expediency in the hopes of denying him re-election?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same? Just for political expediency in the hopes of denying him re-election?


Perhaps on the _extreme_ outside chance that it wasn't a Congressional conspiracy......but because they were doing their mandated 'checks/balances' role and acting on behalf of an electorate that disagreed with the path the President was taking?

I know -- crazy talk. It's almost like pointing out that "saying 'nothing is Bush's fault' is absolutely incorrect" is perfectly true.....notwithstanding not a soul here had said that.

Carry on with the :deadhorse:   
(That's meant for both pro- and anti- in this thread, since no one will convince the other)


Some days I'm glad that this thread is here......for those days when when the intellectual rigour of the Recruiting threads actually moves up a notch or two.  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2012)

>Why couldn't President Obama's Congresses do the same?

Because it was President Clinton who went to Congress to work with them, not vice versa.  Understanding who goes to whom with cap in hand - where the burden of concession really lies - is key to understanding how it is possible for bipartisan executive-legislative productivity.  Ditto Reagan going to Tip O'Neill.  Obama?  "I won."  And he just keeps digging that hole deeper, laying accountability nearly everywhere but at his own feet and complaining about the intransigence of Republicans while assigning himself the role of "reasonable man".


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Sep 2012)

Obama actually spent more money than all his predecessors combined and he aint done yet. Obamacare will be a huge drag on the economy unless it gets rolled back.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama actually spent more money than all his predecessors combined and he aint done yet. Obamacare will be a huge drag on the economy unless it gets rolled back.



Not according to the CBO, the Council of Economic Advisors, or any study I can find that wasn't produced by the Heritage Foundation or some other hideously partisan organization. Most who vehemently oppose it, I've noticed, have no idea what Obamacare actually is, so it's kind of hard to take them seriously.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not according to the CBO, the Council of Economic Advisors, or any study I can find that wasn't produced by the Heritage Foundation or some other hideously partisan organization. Most who vehemently oppose it, I've noticed, have no idea what Obamacare actually is, so it's kind of hard to take them seriously.



The same can be said for organizations on all sides, including the one's you use, according to whose opinion is being voiced.

Adjectives such as this are not conducive to calm and even discussion.

Have the opinions you want. Leave the vindictiveness out of it.

Your opinions fall outside most here, but you wish to be taken seriously. It's a two way street, try learning to walk it.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.


Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The same can be said for organizations on all sides, including the one's you use, according to whose opinion is being voiced.
> 
> Adjectives such as this are not conducive to calm and even discussion.
> 
> ...



It's not vindictive. It's reality. It's also found on both sides, though far more on the right. Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality. Selling any other story is simply not true.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.



He's also slowed the growth of them dramatically - was it Forbes or WSJ that reported that, I can't remember... either way it wasn't a "liberal media" bastion. And how much of those deficits, again, are products of HIS policy decisions, and how much are the product of policies in place before he was elected? If you may recall, he wanted to let the sun set on the Bush tax cuts on the richest, but didn't - and couldn't - because he had to make deals.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.



When did he call President Bush a traitor? He made a promise on the deficit that he did not, and probably could not have kept. But he made an impact on them apparently. Not ideal outcome, but political realities and promises rarely align.


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality. 

That has to be the funniest line you have ever come up with.  Absolute comedy gold.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality.
> 
> That has to be the funniest line you have ever come up with.  Absolute comedy gold.



Ever heard of the CBO?


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ever heard of the CBO?



The CBO costed what the Democrats put in front of them to cost.  Which just happened be be 10 years of revenues but 6 years of costs.  Duh!

Ever heard of Forbes?

"In the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision, President Obama’s signature policy achievement is safe, and the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) will continue as planned. The U.S. economy is another story. Obamacare’s projected economic consequences were negative when the legislation passed in 2009, and they remain so today, increasing the likelihood that national economic growth will lag expectations, and budget crises at the national and state levels will persist. 

The reason is simple: Obamacare increases government regulations, increases taxes, and increases spending, but it never addresses the central problems with the current health care system. That is, it neither improves health outcomes nor controls skyrocketing health care costs. At a time of trillion dollar federal deficits and state and local budgetary stress, the legislation burdens the federal and state governments (to the extent they choose to participate) with additional expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will cost an additional $1.5 trillion through 2021, some of which may be financed by the states through higher Medicaid and other health programs. This $1.5 trillion is equivalent to an additional annual cost of $1,261 per U.S. household, or a diversion of 2.5% of the average household’s gross income."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/11/the-supreme-court-cannot-rewrite-obamacares-economic-consequences/


----------



## TheHead (5 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> There is zero, nada, no doubt that Obama is the absolute record holder when it comes to running deficits.
> 
> 
> Vey rich coming from a candidate that ran on calling Bush a traitor for running his deficits and promising voters to cut the deficit in half in his first term.




He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.   Do you have a source to back that up?


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The CBO costed what the Democrats put in front of them to cost.  Which just happened be be 10 years of revenues but 6 years of costs.  Duh!
> 
> Ever heard of Forbes?
> 
> ...



So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.   Do you have a source to back that up?



I doubt that, since I don't think it ever happened. Oddly enough, a whole lot of conservative hacks seem to throw that word around in connection to the President.

I can find one reference to the President, then a candidate, referring to President Bush's borrowing from China to fund tax cuts as unpatriotic. That's a lot different than calling him a traitor.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> He called Mr. Bush a traitor for running deficits?  That's quite the accusation.   Do you have a source to back that up?



Not a traitor, but unpatriotic for allowig the debt to rise $4 trillion dollars in eight years. If that is the case, then it must be even more unpatriotic to raise the debt $5 trillion in three years, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I doubt that, since I don't think it ever happened. Oddly enough, a whole lot of conservative hacks seem to throw that word around in connection to the President.
> 
> I can find one reference to the President, then a candidate, referring to President Bush's borrowing from China to fund tax cuts as unpatriotic. That's a lot different than calling him a traitor.




It's a _political_ campaign; they are retail _politicians_ out to buy votes; they lie; in fact they lie like sidewalks: Democrats, most of 'em, lie; Republicans lie, too, in exactly the same proportion as Democrats. Their partisans, including Canadian partisans, for both sides, who have little stake and less knowledge also lie - and that's a little sad  because the stakes, as Henry Kissinger said, are really low.

Barack Obama is a second rate president - he will never get any better; Mitt Romney *might* be a little bit better - or maybe worse. But there are no others choices so Americans must select between _Tweedledumb_ and _Tweedledumber_.

We, Canada as a country, have _interests_, even *vital* interests in America, but the outcome of this election is unlikely to advance (or retard) very many of them ~ in fact there are so many and they are so broad that only the most exceptional (bad or good) US president is likely to have much impact.


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not a traitor, but unpatriotic for allowig the debt to rise $4 trillion dollars in eight years. If that is the case, then it must be even more unpatriotic to raise the debt $5 trillion in three years, no?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q



Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...



well since you are such a big fan of the CBO,  you do realize they have written more than one report on Obmacare?

"President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off. "

That's $Trillion with a capital T.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21327


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2012)

Since the key to the election is the economy, the Democrats are going to be running with one foot in a bucket. The last times the economic indicators were like this were at the end of the Carter Administration, leading to a resounding defeat. There is no need to look any further to explain the Democrats obsession (and the Legacy media's framing the narrative) with non issues and avoiding discussions about the economy. Just looking at the timelines (recession ended five months into the administration, incomes declined 5% after the "recovery" etc.), and of course the infamous promise of how the stimulus was going to save the economy and reduce unemployment, complete with a graphic the Dems now hope no one is looking at (notice too the dotted lines indicating the real unemployment figures, and the U3 of 11% at the upper right):

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090412-624523-were-not-better-off-under-obama.htm



> *Better Off? Let's Count the Ways We're Not*
> 
> Posted 09/04/2012 06:50 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.



Yep, gotcha, Bush bad possibly evil whereas Obama is the chosen one who will lead to the promised land.  :

Everything bad on Obamas watch Bushes fault but anything good is all Obamas doing. 

And you have the nerve to refer to others as hacks!  :rofl:


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Yep, gotcha, Bush bad possibly evil whereas Obama is the chosen one who will lead to the promised land.  :
> 
> Everything bad on Obamas watch Bushes fault but anything good is all Obamas doing.
> 
> And you have the nerve to refer to others as hacks!  :rofl:



Yeah, I never said that. At all. What I said, no one has refuted or actually countered. What specific policies of Obama drove the deficits during his administration. If you look at the numbers, the costs of the Iraq war (which Obama actually added into budget to reflect the true cost) and the Bush tax cuts were the major contributors. He attempted to ditch at least part of the Bush tax cuts and was stonewalled by Congress. So... what exactly is his culpability in terms of policies he promoted and/or enacted?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Same question I put out before. Which specific policy moves by President Obama contributed to that? And how much of that is to do with the policies of the previous administration. Has the rate of growth of defict slowed? Yes. That's a start. Did President Obama magically manage to reverse a brutal situation that was a combination of bad policy and global economy catastrophe? Not really. But I doubt anyone could have. The realist in me realizes that. Comparing the President's performance to realistic assessments of the climate makes it a little more tolerable.



So your argument is that as Cheif Executive, George W Bush carries the responsibility for letting the debt increase by $4 trillion over eight years, but Chief Executive Barrack Obama carries no responsibility for the debt rising $5 trillion over three years?

As for specifics, failing to present a budget that was acceptable to the House and Senate (100% voted against, a great example of bipartisanship) and also failing as chief executive to forcing the Democrat majority Senate to either pass the house budget or propose their own for 1200+ days (which oddly comes to before the 2010 midterms and encompasses the time of the Democrat supermajority), ignoring the Simpson-Bowles report, placing regulatory obstacles against the energy industry, slowing down economic growth and job creation, inducing regulatory uncertainty with Obamacare and other proposed tax increases, causing a capital strike as business reduces investment due to uncertainty...


----------



## Redeye (5 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So your argument is that as Cheif Executive, George W Bush carries the responsibility for letting the debt increase by $4 trillion over eight years, but Chief Executive Barrack Obama carries no responsibility for the debt rising $5 trillion over three years?
> 
> As for specifics, failing to present a budget that was acceptable to the House and Senate (100% voted against, a great example of bipartisanship) and also failing as chief executive to forcing the Democrat majority Senate to either pass the house budget or propose their own for 1200+ days (which oddly comes to before the 2010 midterms and encompasses the time of the Democrat supermajority), ignoring the Simpson-Bowles report, placing regulatory obstacles against the energy industry, slowing down economic growth and job creation, inducing regulatory uncertainty with Obamacare and other proposed tax increases, causing a capital strike as business reduces investment due to uncertainty...



Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty. What it was intended to do is clear, and when it comes to taxes, they will clearly have to rise at some point.

I'd love to have seen a budget that could have passed both Houses that eliminated the deficit in a year. Or even in three years. But we all know that would have been impossible, especially since the "Democratic majority Senate" had only 57 seats which meant that the GOP were in a position to filibuster anything they didn't like, and they made clear their intention to do so. No chance any budget that would have been acceptable AND addressed the deficit was getting through. I don't even know where they could have started on one, given that things like defence which consume a massive chunk of federal spending are treated like a sacred cow.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty. What it was intended to do is clear, and when it comes to taxes, they will clearly have to rise at some point.
> 
> I'd love to have seen a budget that could have passed both Houses that eliminated the deficit in a year. Or even in three years. But we all know that would have been impossible, especially since the "Democratic majority Senate" had only 57 seats which meant that the GOP were in a position to filibuster anything they didn't like, and they made clear their intention to do so. No chance any budget that would have been acceptable AND addressed the deficit was getting through. I don't even know where they could have started on one, given that things like defence which consume a massive chunk of federal spending are treated like a sacred cow.



So it's not Obamas fault.  :


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

"Obamacare created no real regulatory uncertainty."

So the first round of new rules and regulations for ObamaCare - just the initial implementation runs to 13,000 pages.

That is a of uncertainty, a lot of "what the hell does that mean".

Because 13,000 pages of new lawyer/bureaucrat speak is the essence of uncertainty to any business.


----------



## cupper (5 Sep 2012)

Oh how the right loves to replay debunked half truths and lies.

Yes, it is true that the national average gas price was at $1.83 when Obama took office.

However, the price of gas "tanked" severely from a high of $4.12 in July 2008 to the low of $1.83 in Jan 2009.

Since then, prices have been on a slow continual rise back to where they would have been if the crash in Sept 2008 had not occurred.

While we're at it, let's put to rest the BS about Obama ending the work requirement for welfare, Obama's failure to prevent the closure of the Janesville GM plant, and the biggest piece of BS of them all, the Democratic Super Majority from 2009 to 2011.


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Obama's failure to prevent the closure of the Janesville GM plant



Obama quote:

"I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give the assistance you need to retool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another 100 years. So, that’s our priority… I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America, I want it to thrive right here in Janesville, Wisconsin. And that’s the future I will fight for as president of the United States of America.'

Ryan quote:

"“A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year."

What Ryan said is 100% accurate.  

http://www.therightscoop.com/boom-new-romney-ad-exposes-obamas-empty-promises-to-janesville-plant/


If you want really big lies, what about Obama claiming he "saved the American auto industry" when what he did was screw over the Bondholders and bail out two of three unionized auto makers - GM & Chrysler.

He didn't bail out Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc.  

By the way . .  before he bailed out the UAW's underwater pension plan, the bailout he uses to claim he saved the entire USA auto industry, GM employed about 90,000+.

They now employ about 60,000+.

All Hail the Savior!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's not vindictive. It's reality. It's also found on both sides, though far more on the right. Non-partisan sources suggest that there's little economic impact (positive OR negative) to Obamacare. That's reality. Selling any other story is simply not true.



Just your reality, not everyone else's. 

Once more, just because it fits in your little niche, doesn't make it so.

Choose your words better and keep it civil.

That goes for everyone else here.

If it can't remain civil, we'll put it to bed and you'll all have to get lives.

That is all.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Sep 2012)

The Dem's got alot of bad press because they took the word God out of their platform [it was mentioned in 2008] and to insert Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. The Chairman called for a voice vote to confirm the changes and here is what happened. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg&feature=player_embedded


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Sep 2012)

That was an interesting exercise in democracy.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Sep 2012)

Well, as Clint Eastwood proved, talking to empty chairs is nuts.  I guess that's why the DNC is moving indoors.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/world/2012/09/20120905-165255.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2012)

>So, a guy who works for a right wing think tank and a right wing economics institute bearing the name of the guy who came up with "supply side" opposes it. Wow. Am I ever shocked. Moving right along then...

Both arguably know the subject, so your failure to address the point is not a rebuttal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Sep 2012)

US federal deficits:

2003: -$ 378 B
2004: -$ 413 B
2005: -$ 318 B
2006: -$ 248 B
2007: -$ 161 B
2008: -$ 459 B
2009: -$1413 B
2010: -$1293 B
2011: -$1299 B

Those are net - on-budget and off-budget - and include the effects of the wars, tax cuts, etc, etc.  See the trend prior to 2008 (when the economy went tits up)?  This is important, so pay attention: With all of the "Bush policies" in play, the deficit was very (relatively) small and tracking to flip to surplus in 2009 or 2010.  Also, TARP and ARRA were (supposed to be) one-time shots.  The answer to "why are the deficits so large?" has nothing to do with war spending or tax cuts.  It is entirely a consequence of revenue shortfall and increased spending.  (For those instinctively inclined to believe the pretty pictures that show "tax cuts" and "war costs", think very carefully about what I have just explained until you understand the meaning in particular of "revenue shortfall".)  Given the trend and the small 2007 deficit, there is no significant achievement in merely slowing growth - the question is why there is any growth at all after 2008/2009 (TARP and ARRA).  If there is any sort of measurable recovery (revenue growth at least keeping pace with minimum necessary spending growth due to population increase and inflation), if the one-time expenditures are over and done, and if there is no new spending in the myriad of new regulations (impossible, though: addition of regulation - Obamacare, Dodd-Frank in particular - means more cost), the deficits should have been successively smaller since 2009.  [Add: the 2012 deficit projection is -$1327 B in the OMB historical fiscal tables I used.]

The US economy and federal fiscal picture is badly pooched.  The Democrats wasted time with their wish-list items and wasted money cushioning the payrolls of their union friends, thinking the recovery would naturally occur and they could ride it to re-election.  Invalid assumption; big mistake; catastrophic outcome.  They had a shot to try their theories (remember the administration's economic dream-time?) and ****** it up, big time.  There is no time for a 4-year do-over.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2012)

More reasons that the Democrats won't answer the question "Are you better off than you were four years ago?". It is shameful that third world nations are now ahead of the United States on these metrics (but crony capitalism will do that):

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/another-dismal-assessment-of-obamanomics-united-states-drops-to-7th-in-wefs-global-competitiveness-index/



> *International Liberty*
> Restraining Government in America and Around the World
> 
> Another Dismal Assessment of Obamanomics: United States Drops to 7th in WEF’s Global Competitiveness Index
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Sep 2012)

Here is a link to the ABC News website that discusses Robert Woodward's new book. In it he reveals that the President and the Speaker of the House last year were very close to a major budget deal that would have started the process of controlling the deficit. At the last moment the deal collapsed when the President went a demand too far in his search for revenue. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UEjCfXxxMuU

I wonder if the timing of the books release is pure happenstance?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2012)

President Obama is a gifted orator but he must, still, "hit" some issues. Here, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is one reporter's assessment of the issues he needs to address:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/5-things-obama-must-achieve-in-tonights-dnc-speech/article4523497/


> 5 things Obama must achieve in tonight’s DNC speech
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> Charlotte, North Carolina — The Globe and Mail
> ...



 Seems to me like good advice ... I wonder if he can manage?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2012)

"Spread the wealth around", "You didn't build that", and now another very revealing statement on how the Democrat party really sees things. Contrast "We all belong to the government" to how Alexis de Tocqueville described America: a nation of associations, or iconic descriptions like President Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people":

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/09/05/Democrats-We-All-Belong-to-the-Government.aspx#page1



> *Democrats: ‘We All Belong to the Government'*
> 
> By EDWARD MORRISSEY, The Fiscal Times
> September 5, 2012
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2012)

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

We, Canadians, have *vital interests* at stake in this and every US election - probably more than any other country. But: the outcome of this or any other election is unimportant; it is the _drift_ in American culture and policy that maters. We have, over the past 150 years watched and reacted to a _drift_ from _Manifest Destiny_ to _isolationism_ to _constructive/cooperative internationalism_ to _unilateralism_ and now to ... well, I'm not sure about the direction in which America is _drifting_ but we must adapt.

The immediate issue is economic ... for us. But the economic issue is more complex for Americans - it touches on their sense of themselves. The _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson understands this (even if he is weak on economics) and he explains part of it in a column in the _Globe and Mail_ headlined *America’s flight from fiscal reality*. He explains that:



> The flight from reality of so many Americans into the nether worlds of ideology is discouraging when it’s not frightening ... The flight from reality is easy to diagnose. Neither party wants to axe the sacred military budget. Neither wants to raise taxes. By definition, therefore, the restoration of fiscal health has to come exclusively from spending cuts to domestic programs ... Today, Republican candidates for the Senate and the House are campaigning on not making *any* compromises if they’re elected. Even if Mr. Obama is re-elected, the gridlock and ideological entrenchment that define contemporary American politics will continue, and one key to solving the country’s fiscal dilemma – tax increases – will remain as remote as ever.



Tax increases, in and of themselves, are useless unless they are part of a bigger, better fiscal reform package - which *must include cuts to the Pentagon* and to entitlements. The broad outlines of those necessary fiscal reforms are pretty clear to most (just many?) people but they are hostages in the US culture wars which are, mostly, not about economics.

The current US culture wars are not new; they are just a continuation of disputes that have been ongoing in Euro-American society for about 500 years. The issue is (real) _liberal_ vs _conservative_ - between the *rights* of the _sovereign individual_ and the *needs* of the _community_ or _collective_. These battles have been waged in religious, political, social and economic terms. In fact, my 500 years figure is 'off' by 500 years - we can see the origins of the problems in the structure of European society 1,000 years ago. The distribution of serfs (broadly anyone 'bound' to someone else by formal rules) and freemen was vastly different in Scandinavia, Britain and some North German states, with fewer serfs and more freemen, on one hand, and the French, South German, Spanish and Italian states, with an almost reverse distribution - many serfs and few freemen,  on the other. That difference _may_ be rooted, but only in part, in disputes between the Irish and Roman churches that go back hundreds of years earlier - the Romans 'won' the liturgical battles but, perhaps, lost the cultural war. Anyhow, it's not new and it's not unique to America but it is both destructive and wasteful and, despite Americans' well known propensity to solve problems, unlikely to be 'finished.'

Our *vital interests* in America are so many, so varied, so broad and so deep that we, as a country, as enterprises and even as individuals, must take American politics into account. But we must do so with a cold, clear eye on our own interests. In my opinion:

1. We are, already, far ahead of the Americans in the culture wars ~ not all of us like the outcomes but _most_ Canadians (and e.g. Australians and Singaporeans) are unwilling to revisit the issue, the _status quo_ is good enough and, as in other areas, "the best is often the bitter enemy of the good enough."

2. Neither President Obama nor Governor Romney is likely to make any important changes to America.

3. No single electoral result, not president, not, congressman, not governor, not state senator, not mayor, matters very much at all but the overall _drift_ is very, very important.

4. The _drift_ appears, now, to be towards the _neo-conservatives_ (a variant but not close relative of the _classical liberal_) but that is, relatively, new, since the 1980s.

5. Americans self perception matters as much as does real (military and economic) power. America's _soft power_ has been wasting since the 1970s, now its hard power is harder and harder to afford. We must be conscious of America's _pain_ as it adjusts to the reality that it _might_ not be the "new Jerusalem."

6. America needs some time to let the current culture wars die down and to return to political and economic sanity - that will happen; Americans are neither foolish nor self destructive; their culture, even when at war with itself, is strong and well _balanced_. In stock trading terms, despite all of its current problems, America is a "buy," and we, Canada, should be doing just that.

*BUT ... *​
7. Obama vs Romney? Pffft .... the outcome means little to America and less, far less, to Canada and the world. And the _campaign_? It's nonsense, nothing more, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" and all that sort of thing.


----------



## GAP (7 Sep 2012)

It would seem the US's biggest problem is......It Does Not have a Leader. 

The current incumbent  and his challenger not withstanding, there has not been for at least 20 years, nor in the for-seeable future anyone who can motivate the country as a whole.....until that happens, not much will happen....


----------



## Jed (7 Sep 2012)

Just who would be capable of being a leader? Even Lincoln whose leadership was shaped in the crucible of the Civil War had his difficulties and issues during his tenure.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Sep 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Just who would be capable of being a leader? Even Lincoln whose leadership was shaped in the crucible of the Civil War had his difficulties and issues during his tenure.



Yep.  Difficulties indeed:


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2012)

Dems should have left the "God" and "Jerusalem" issues alone.

They could have made a great turn about on the Conservative punditry by pointing to the fact that the GOP is focusing on not having God in Democratic platform, while the Dems are focusing on what really matters to voters, like jobs, education, blah blah.

or

Do you really think Joe Six-pack is lying awake at night worrying about recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, when he has no job, no health insurance, and is about to lose his home?


And would someone give Antonio Villaraigosa a good swift kick in the nuts? The optics of reopening the platform for the amendments was bad enough, but to call for a voice vote three times, when it was clear that the split was never more than 50/50 was just pathetic. :facepalm:

As Jon Stewart pointed out, he should have just read the prompter, and closed it out the first time.


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2012)

Picked up an interesting read at Chapters yesterday.

"America, But Better" by Brian Calvert and Chris Cannon.

http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/america-but-better

Only half way through, but takes a humourous look at the 2012 Campaign, through the Canada Party Manifesto, where all of Canada runs for the US Presidency.

Although it is written as tongue in cheek, there is some very insightful commentary, wrapped up in satire.

One thing I found very interesting is that Chris Cannon is a former US Marine Sgt. Maj. who was involved in intelligence and counter terrorism, and is now teaching comparative culture at a BC university.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2012)

>Tax increases, in and of themselves, are useless unless they are part of a bigger, better fiscal reform package

In 2007, just dropping the extra appropriations for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars would have come close to balancing the budget, and removal of those expenses is relatively imminent.  Fiscal reform is needed to deal with growth in programs which exceeds customary growth in GDP (ie. primarily health care entitlements), but the foremost problems the US faces are primarily that the recession shrunk the pie and secondarily that a number of new expenses were added.  The Democratic argument is that the size of the slice needs to increase; the Republican argument is that the size of the pie needs to increase.

US federal income tax rates are already comfortably higher than Canadian federal income tax rates; it isn't that middle class and "rich" Americans don't have high enough rates.

Democratic policies are militating against increasing the size of the pie.  However people feel bound to their ideology, it's a fact (not an opinion or interpretation) that revenues are nowhere near what they must be to reach the dotted line one might extrapolate from pre-2008, and it's virtually impossible to convincingly argue that the additional rules that accumulate with every successive year are not synonymous with an ever-expanding burden of costs that slowly strangle economic growth by diverting resources away from investment into compliance. What needs "reform" are US policies - legislation and regulation - that create an uncertain environment in which businesses have to make economic decisions.  Bluntly, businesses need stability.  Entrepreneurs can make a go on small margins under all sorts of impediments and hassles and bureaucratic "squeeze" designed to raise money for all levels of government, but the impediments and hassles have to be predictable and relatively invariant, and not bound up in fvcked-up legislation that no one could possibly analyze before signing it into law.


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> In 2007, just dropping the extra appropriations for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars would have come close to balancing the budget, and removal of those expenses is relatively imminent.



Problem with that is the appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan were done outside the normal budget process, and were never incorporated into the deficit. It was only after Obama took office, and took the step of including them in normal Defense expenditures, and thus they became part of the deficit did the effect become apparent.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2012)

The figures I use are the _net_ deficit and debt which include all of the _on budget_ and _off budget_ expenditures.  Which column in the great "General Accounting Ledger" particular amounts belong to is irrelevant to my assessment and conclusion.

When I say "balancing the budget", I mean "no net deficit" (that thing Democrats like to attribute to the tireless heroism of Bill Clinton, despite the spendthrift "Contract with America" Congress and the struggle to grow revenues during the dot-com boom).  When I mean "operating balance", "on-budget expenditures", "off-budget expenditures", "regular appropriations",  "special appropriations", or some other lesser piece of the whole, I generally make that explicit.  And the president's "budget request" is just a forecast.

Funny fact: for years, and still, "off-budget" revenues have exceeded "off-budget" expenses for the US federal government.  The wars are paid for after all!

[Edit: remove abject error; "primary" is synonymous with "operating", not "net" as the latter is generally understood.]


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2012)

Staggering jobs report, which the President was probably briefed on before he gave his speech at the DNC. The updated figures are truly horrifying, particularly when they are corrected for labour force participation; 11% means more than one in ten Americans is unemployed, so virtually everyone in the United States has family, friends or neighbours in that category. Coupled with declining incomes (-7% since 2008, with -5% coming _after_ the 2009 "recovery") and escalating inflation in food and fuel prices and the American people are being subject to a "misery index" similar to the end of the Carter Administration. NJo wonder Demoicrat politicans try to avoid the question "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Multiple graphs at link:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/the-awful-awful-august-jobs-report/



> *The awful, awful August jobs report*
> James Pethokoukis | September 7, 2012, 9:28 am
> RomerBernsteinAugust
> 
> ...



Edit to add WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577635681206305056.html



> *Mortimer Zuckerman: Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look*
> Still above 8%—and closer to 19% in a truer accounting. Here's a plan for improvement.
> 
> By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2012)

When the President gave himself an incomplete maybe it was because so many folks still had jobs.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2012)

WRM suggests the deeper issue of this election is the transition from the "Blue model" of society towards a still undefined post progressive society. Highlighted section is the payoff: 

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/08/noise-vs-knowledge-americas-longest-presidential-campaign/



> *Noise vs. Knowledge: America’s Longest Presidential Campaign*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Following American presidential elections intelligently is a tricky thing to do. No spectacle anywhere in the world gets as much attention as the world’s longest and most grueling marathon. After all, the US president is the most powerful office holder in the world, commander in chief of the greatest military forces ever assembled, and the lead policy maker for the largest economy any nation has ever constructed. At the same time, the America election process is a window into the soul of the public opinion of a society that by turns attracts, alarms and repulses — but always fascinates — the rest of the world. And with the world’s largest, best capitalized and most globally influential media assemblage fixated on the American election cycle, the spectacle has long since become, quite literally, the Greatest Show on Earth.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2012)

Reality derailed the "narrative". It will be interesting to see how this plays out:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/12/the-day-the-roof-fell-in/



> *The Day The Roof Fell In*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Sometimes trouble blows up out of a clear blue sky. That’s what happened to the White House yesterday.
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2012)

It is very interesting that Romney himself appears to be the only one who has decided to go on the attack. His own running mate seems to be fairly subdued in his response, and Congressional GOP leaders have been just as muted in their comments over the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi.

Romney's response claiming that the Egyptian Embassy issued an apology for "American Values" was patently wrong. The Embassy issued a statement before the protests began condemning the anti-islamic film, but did not apologize for any actions. Even after the protesters left the embassy grounds, the Embassy issued a tweet stating that the invasion of the grounds would not deter form their promotion of free speech or criticizing bigotry.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=161025953&m=161025924

The money quote of this day goes to President Obama:

"Governor Romney has a tendency to shoot first and aim later, and as President one of the things I've learned is that you can't do that."

Romney made a gamble to try and take away from the President's advantage in Foreign Policy and National Security, and lost. And it only proves the point that he lacks a sense of realpolitik, and needs to work on gaining the skills needed in the Foreign policy realm. His statements may have cost some independent votes from concerns that he may lead the country into another military foray.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2012)

As if you really didn't know the Legacy media is in the tank, transcript and video on this link here of media coordinating prior to a press conference by Governor Romney. The tone on the video is pretty illustrative. OF course, after the discovery of  the "Journolist" emails, this should come as no surprise, but the brazen nature and lack of caution when doing this is. The repeated "Governor, Governor" souonds a lot like the press heckling during Governor Romney's European trip; after which the press declared "victory" although a close reading of the events (and watching non Americna coverage) woudl suggest otherwise:


http://www.therightscoop.com/exclusive-open-mic-captures-press-coordinating-questions-for-romney-no-matter-who-he-calls-on-were-covered/



> EXCLUSIVE: Open mic captures press coordinating questions for Romney “no matter who he calls on we’re covered”
> Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on September 12th, 2012 in Politics | 660 Comments
> Email
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2012)

"Governor Romney has a tendency to shoot first and aim later, and as President one of the things I've learned is that you can't do that."

I guess the two sides will see it differently.  The other view is that Romney is comfortable making decisions based on principles and incomplete information - wouldn't we all like to have complete information - and that Obama can't take a position on anything without taking time to calculate his personal political advantage.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2012)

So for months Obama has been bragging and boasting about getting Obama. He even has made a central theme in his reelection efforts . .  . "Osama is dead, GM is alive" or "We came. We saw.  He died". Laugh, laugh laugh.


So after rubbing their noses in it for months for domestic political maybe it was really a catastrophic foreign policy gaff to make fun of passionate people well versed in terrorism and getting even.


Afterall, the mobs in Egypt & Libya were changing "Osama, Obama"


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Sep 2012)

The Presidents policies are fair game. I remembered after 9-11 the democrats tried to make political hay out of the tragedy. During much of OIF and OEF it was all doom and gloom - until they get into office.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Sep 2012)

DNC gaffe......

 :rofl:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112/



> *Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets*
> 
> On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (13 Sep 2012)

One perspective of what happened yesterday  . . .

"Yesterday was a key day — perhaps the day — in the campaign. Convention bounce and the Chicago teachers strike were instantly overshadowed. There was an opportunity to go for the win, and Romney took it. The media noticed, of course, and sprang into such intense, concerted action that it was obvious that they knew it was a day to be won and if the other side was going to go for the win, they had to act quickly and ensure that their guy won the day. Shock and awe, baby. Awesomely awful, indeed."

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/09/romney-offends-pundits-doesnt-he-know.html

And it looks like the polls have returned to pre conventions levels . . .   Dead cat bounce.


----------



## Haletown (13 Sep 2012)

Perhaps the  most fascinating  player in the US election has to Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton.  He is a remarkable politician who many, many Americans trust.  He has done is penance and has been forgiven.

His background has been largely forgotten except for his oft reminded Budget Surplesses. But he played a major role in policies and rules that drove events that crashed iand burned in 2008.

Thomas Sowell  explains. . . .

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/09/13/the_brass_standard

Interesting trip down memory lane.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2012)

God. November and the inevitable chest poking aftermath can't come soon enough. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> God. November and the inevitable chest poking aftermath can't come soon enough. :



 :ditto:


Because:







     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



A week is a long time in politics             &  Events, dear boy, events


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :ditto:
> 
> 
> Because:
> ...



How I miss them.  And men of their ilk.... with all their faults.

There is something steadying about a pipe.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Sep 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There is something steadying about a pipe.



I agree....


----------



## Haletown (14 Sep 2012)

Fighting back against Sequestration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dulqc38770s

In related news, Romney has revealed he will re-open the F-22 production line if elected in November


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Fighting back against Sequestration.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dulqc38770s
> 
> In related news, Romney has revealed he will re-open the F-22 production line if elected in November




I am pretty much convinced that sequestration will happen ... because 90% of the elected people in Washington, Democrats and Republics alike and in equal numbers, are hidebound fools and partisan charlatans. There is, in terms of _responsibility_, not a shred of difference between Harry Reid and Paul Ryan - each is willing to sell out his country for a slight partisan political advantage which means each is despicable.

Until Americans, hundreds of millions of Americans, grow up and toss these moral midgets out of office they will get what they deserve: mindless, across the board cuts.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But, given the intellectual quality of the Congress and the White House maybe "mindless" is an improvement ...


----------



## cupper (14 Sep 2012)

I contemplated posting this in the Dumbest Thing I Read Today, but I wasn't sure if anyone would get the joke. ;D

*Romney team sharpens attack on Obama’s foreign policy*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-team-sharpens-attack-on-obamas-foreign-policy/2012/09/13/9b3f2744-fdd3-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html?hpid=z1



> Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.
> 
> “There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (14 Sep 2012)

."Oopsie!  The Obama regime's economic plans score an own goal. 

"Ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government to "AA-" from "AA," citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country's credit quality.


In its downgrade, the firm said that issuing more currency and depressing interest rates through purchasing mortgage-backed securities does little to raise the U.S.'s real gross domestic product, but reduces the value of the dollar


----------



## a_majoor (14 Sep 2012)

Anyone thinking the movie was the "cause" of the attacks is probably partaking of the pipe shown upthread. The coordinated nature, the timing and the widespread followups across the region are the result of planning and coordination, and the start date of 9/11 is no coincidence.

WRT which policy "caused" these attacks, the "Arab spring" and resulting empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood" would be number one in my book, YMMV.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2012)

What did people think would happen when the Muslim Brotherhood took over in north africa ? People tend to forget that the MB was the parent of AQ,Hamas and Hizbollah. When Assad's father had to put down a Muslim Brotherhood revolt he killed as many of them as he could find. You would think the MB would be grateful for President Obama's support.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Anyone thinking the movie was the "cause" of the attacks is probably partaking of the pipe shown upthread. The coordinated nature, the timing and the widespread followups across the region are the result of planning and coordination, and the start date of 9/11 is no coincidence.
> 
> WRT which policy "caused" these attacks, the "Arab spring" and resulting empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood" would be number one in my book, YMMV.



Move on past ALL the rhetoric.

There is no policy. There is no rhyme or reason.

There is no movie, song, cartoon, statement, editorial or perceived notion required to set these people off.

Radical Muslims don't need ANY reason, except that we don't fervently adhere to the same belief and code of conduct that they do.

The world gets to go on living simply because there is not enough of these crackpots around to ensure the total demise of those that have a different belief.

There is no redemption for them. There is no reasoning or bargaining. Negotiation, tolerance and peace do not exist in their vocabulary.

There is but one solution to ensure that these terrorists leave the world to remain tolerant and reasonably peaceful.


We have to hunt down each and every one of them and kill them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2012)

Although we are about seven "long times"* away from the US elections I wonder, a wee bit, why, given the state of the US economy, Mitt Romney is not ahead in the polls. Historian Niall Ferguson offers some answers in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Newsweek_:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/09/niall-ferguson-why-is-obama-winning.html


> Niall Ferguson: Why Obama Is Winning
> *The economy's in the tank, yet Romney can't seem to gain an edge. One thing's for sure: this election is about personal likability. It's not the economy, stupid.*
> 
> Sep 10, 2012
> ...




Ferguson makes as much sense as anyone else: If the economy is _*issue 1*_ then Romney ought to be way ahead in almost all the polls; Romney is behind in almost all the polls, so the economy is  not the _driver_.


__________
*




  A week is a long time in politics
  Harold Wilson


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2012)

Here are some reasons why not to believe in the polls.

1.Media is in the tank for Obama
2.Media doesnt cover the economy in the nightly news
3.The media doesnt cover the war or anything that might embarass Obama
4.The media was instrumental in gettin O elected in the first place

All this will begin to shift more toward fair and balanced polling in October,because despite the bias the pollers have reputations. No one wants to be on the record indicating an Obama landslide when it may be just the opposite.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2012)

Maybe.  but likability seems to be the main factor.  Because.

1.  Maybe.  Some definitly are, like MSNBC.  But Fox News certainly isn't.  But the republicans certainly have been giving the media plenty of ammo this year with awful sound bites and medis eff-ups.

2.  Because people know the economy is in the hole.  Just like most of the world. People would rather be distracted.

3.  Again, the war is old news

4.  True.  and the media have decided that Americans should like him again.

The republicans had a very self destructive race.  It was quite the gong show.  All Obama had to do is sit back, watch and take notes.  Romney himself was essentially the best of the worst and conservatives in the US aren't thrilled he's their man.  His latest attempt to use the events in the middle east to score points saw his own supporters distance themselves.  Every time Trump asks for birth certificates or some republican tries to define rape and abortion in crazy ways it does the whole GOP some damage even though it might not be the party stance, those things support the fearmongering.

I think that article hit the nail on the head.  Likeability is trumping the economy.


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Here are some reasons why not to believe in the polls.
> 
> 1.Media is in the tank for Obama
> 2.Media doesnt cover the economy in the nightly news
> ...



Hey, look at that ... My Alcoa stock just went up! ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2012)

You may not have noticed but an incumbent President that isnt touting his economic success has a problem. What success does he have to run on ? An energy policy that has seen prices spike higher and higher. More people on food stamps than ever before. More people on Social Security disability than ever before. Continued high unemployment. College graduates with student loan debt and no jobs. Minority youth cant find work either. No one watches MSNBC but maybe some Canadians. >


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You may not have noticed but an incumbent President that isnt touting his economic success has a problem. What success does he have to run on ? An energy policy that has seen prices spike higher and higher. More people on food stamps than ever before. More people on Social Security disability than ever before. Continued high employment. College graduates with student loan debt and no jobs. Minority youth cant find work either. No one watches MSNBC but maybe some Canadians. >



Yes. Agreed. And a challenger that can't make any headway despite all of that has an even bigger one.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yes. Agreed. And a challenger that can't make any headway despite all of that has an even bigger one.



The election hasn't been held yet. The bar is set pretty low for Romney in that he isnt Obama. Four more years or hope for change. ;D


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2012)

I guess that's what it boils down to.  A lot can happen in 7 weeks.


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2012)

This election starting last fall was the GOP's to lose.

And based on how things have progressed so far, it will be lost.

Start off with the crap fest of candidates that ran in this year's primary.

Actually, check that, lets start with the fact that in the 2008 primaries Romney was shunned by all of the other candidates, and ended up dropping out early in the process.

Jump ahead to 2011. Romney again throws his hat in the ring. The primaries become an exercise in trying to find a nominee who was someone other than Romney. We watched every one else rise in the polls over Romney, only to flame out over one controversial statement or action after another. Meanwhile Romney never gets above 30% in the support. The primaries drag on and become a war of attrition, with only Romney left standing. He has only lukewarm support within the mainstream of his own party, and the right wing tail wagging the dog question's his sincerity.

Now, put this together with a campaign that allowed the opposition to dictate the agenda right from the start and Advisers that either are ignored (my suspicion) or just plain faulty in their advice, and you have a formula for one of teh worst run campaigns in recent history form either side of the coin.

It is very telling when respected members of the moderate conservative wing of the party come out and criticize how you have run your campaign. Bill Kristol, Rupert Murdoch and others all have said that changes need to be made. And they started saying this back in June. And they are still saying it now.

The platform policies lack detail. "We have a plan, you have to trust us." And the excuse of not wanting to give the opposition something they can use against them is just lame.

Ryan was selected to solidify Romney's credibility with the right wing conservatives. But Ryan has been muzzled, his own asset (his conservative policy agenda) set aside.

It is their election to lose. And I see no reason to doubt that they will.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Sep 2012)

Wishful thinking cupper ?  :camo:


----------



## cupper (16 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wishful thinking cupper ?  :camo:



No. It's all I've got, now that the NHL lockout has kicked in.  :'(

Dear NHL Owners:

You Suck!


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2012)

With this administration's Middle East policy in ruins we are now seeing a convergence of forces similar to 1979:

The economy sucks, the "misery index" is high (stagflation in 1979, massive unemployment and spiking inflation in 2012) and Americans are under violent and visible attack in the Middle East (Iranian Embassy in 1979, across a wide swath in 2012).

T6 is correct about the media being in the tank, however. Just a few short years ago we were treated to nightly newscasts on the horrible jobless recovery; George W Bush's Administration was pilloried for unemployment of 5%, and rising gas prices (until he signed an executive order opening up Federal land for exploration that collapsed gas prices in a matter of months). The Bush administration was castigated for ignoring the "good war" in Afghanistan for the "bad war" in Iraq; now that the center of activity is Afghanistan (and casualties occur on an almost daily basis) we hear almost nothing. Even the carnage in the Middle East got page A4 coverage in the NYT, which should raise a few eyebrows at least.

Events are spinning out of control, and I think this Administration simply has no idea what to do or what steps to take. So long as things could be swept under the rug then the race was for the Republican Party to lose, since events can no longer be ignored now it is wide open.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> With this administration's Middle East policy in ruins we are now seeing a convergence of forces similar to 1979 ...
> ...




But,Thucydides it's not just "this administration's Middle East policy" which lies in ruins; it is *America*'s Middle East policy, going all the way back to Eisenhower (the last of the really good presidents ~ infinitely superior, in every respect, to the much overrated _Saint_ Ronald Reagan). I lay much of the blame at the feet of the Dulles brothers and the deleterious influence of 'Wild Bill' Donovan who left America with a misguided understanding of _intelligence_ and of the applications of _terrorism_.


----------



## Haletown (16 Sep 2012)

The video that really got the mobs in the middle east going . . .

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yoQz79gMlHA


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But,Thucydides it's not just "this administration's Middle East policy" which lies in ruins; it is *America*'s Middle East policy, going all the way back to Eisenhower (the last of the really good presidents ~ infinitely superior, in every respect, to the much overrated _Saint_ Ronald Reagan). I lay much of the blame at the feet of the Dulles brothers and the deleterious influence of 'Wild Bill' Donovan who left America with a misguided understanding of _intelligence_ and of the applications of _terrorism_.



Past Presidents supported our allies. On the other hand President Obama encouraged the replacement of pro-western leaders which has seen a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood,an organization that has spawned a number of terror groups including AQ.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Sep 2012)

>The platform policies lack detail. "We have a plan, you have to trust us." 

The platform policies have enough detail to be "fact-checked", and both Romney and Ryan defend ideas that have made it all the way into legislation in the past.  (Legislation is usually fairly detailed.)  And the "trust us" line is essentially the entire platform of the administration.  The incumbent, holding the executive, with the entire apparatus of the executive branch at his command, should be able to provide some specifics.  I suppose he either can not (has no real idea what to do) or will not (does not want to deal with current events, and does not wish to advertise which side projects he wishes to take up in lieu of dealing with current events).


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Sep 2012)

Compared to a President with no executive job experience,Romney will be breath of fresh air. The anti-oil crowd will be gone and maybe we can get serious about developing our own resources to get off the crack that is middle east oil.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2012)

While I have to agree with ERC that the foundations of America's Middle East policy are misguided, the specifics of _this_ Administration's policy was laid out in a speech in Cairo in 2008, and promulgated ever since. Essentially the idea that if Americans were to "reach out" to Islamic peoples, stop supporting dictatorial regimes (even if they were American cilents) and show far less support to Israel then Islamic radicalism would be defanged and American interests in the region preserved at a much lower cost.

While this was the public face of the policy, the bowing to Middle Eastern leaders, the Apology tour, snubbing of Isreal and the Green revolution in Iran, supporting the "Arab Spring" and Libyian uprising without checking who was behind it and who would benefit the most and all the other pieces did not deliver any tangeble benefits, and the rest of the Middle East policy was simply to continue the various initiatives of the Bush Administration. The fact that these two paths are contradictory apparently never crossed anyone's mind either.

So the 0300 phone call finally came and no one was there to answer. Since the entire region may well fall into disorder or even regional war as various factions, would be hegemons and ethnic groups seek to benefit from the shifting of pieces, I predict it will be many years before any US or Western policy besides containment will be viable or even possible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Sep 2012)

It was Europe's dependence on Libya oil that caused the campaign to topple Ghaddafi. Nothing has changed in that regard. Notice the west hasnt had the same sense of urgency in dealing with Syria. A Syria without Assad might benefit that corner of the world. Syria is probably more strategic. A friendly pro-western regime would help Israel and Lebanon. Isolating Hizbollah has to be a priority.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2012)

Going back to the other threads, I think the best possible outcome we could see in Syria is a splintering into 3 or 4 micro polities (a Kurdish enclave and an Alawite enclave as a minimum). This is "best we can hope for" best, not best possible outcme for us (worst possible outcome is Syria is taken over by Islamic radicals as much of the "Arab Spring" seems to have become). Spreading this idea to the entire region, as Lawrence Solomon suggests in this piece in the National Post, might be a viable Western strategy and shift enough pieces to enable an Islamic reformation (what is happening now is more akin to an Islamic counter Reformation).

Will any future administration try this? Hard to say; while it is Wilsonian in conception many people will see this as George W Bush on steroids, sowing democracy across the Middle East. (This won't be true, BTW; this program has no explicit provision for the development and nurturing of the institutions that run in the background and support liberal democratic polities and cultures). As a war plan, it is exceptionally devious and requires a minimal outlay by the West, and allows the various religious, political and ethnic factions in the Middle East to fight it out to their heart's content rather than taking the fight to the West. Given the impressive amounts of recoverable oil that new technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling have unlocked in North America, the threat of the oil weapon is no longer as all powerful as it was even a decade ago, so *we* have far more flexibility to work out a new, coherent or at least applicable to the 21rst century Middle East policy.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2012)

> Will any future administration try this? Hard to say; while it is Wilsonian in conception many people will see this as George W Bush on steroids, sowing democracy across the Middle East.



I don't see the middle east being any less belligerent with Sunni and/or Shia dominance. It is just going to continue to get more and more radicalized in whatever form is the flavour of the day....


----------



## cupper (17 Sep 2012)

I don't see a Romney Administration having any better shot at improving the Middle East situation than the previous 5 Administrations.

It's a problem whose roots go deep, back to European Colonialism. Short of letting the whole thing go up in flames, and resolve itself back into the precolonial tribal separations, all anyone will be able to do is act as a global firefighter.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Sep 2012)

It doesn't really matter which one gets in. They are almost twins policy wise. Romney has i_*n practice*_ been very moderate despite his current protestations and VP choice.  Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.  If you are a bit older and remember policies all I see is two Republican candidates.

Obama clearly has it in the bag now though. He would have to shoot himself not to get elected with this much of a lead.  

Here's an idea for the Middle East. Let them work it our amongst themselves.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Sep 2012)

Obama is closer to Karl Marx than he is to Reagan. Today's Democrat Party platform has many similarities with the Communist Party USA. In fact when Obama started out he was part of Chicago's New Party.

http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_New_Party/Progressive_Chicago


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Sep 2012)

Then you have drunk the kool aid and probably never read Marx in your life. That is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable. It's a pathetic sound bite that has no proof what so ever behind it. 

Obama is moderate and much further right than the Canadian *Conservative* Prime Minister.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Then you have drunk the kool aid and probably never read Marx in your life. That is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable. It's a pathetic sound bite that has no proof what so ever behind it.
> 
> Obama is moderate and much further right than the Canadian *Conservative* Prime Minister.



You'll do well to follow the policy we've placed on this, and other political threads, about personal attacks and hyperbolic rhetoric. You're already standing with one foot off the ramp, don't let your mouth push you off completely.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Sep 2012)

Ironically a commie may have done a better job than Obama. A commie would not have bailed out the banks. They would know that you could have have bought them for the same amount of money. Then all the interest paid on mortgages would become TAXES.  The biggest and most painless tax hike in American history. There would be no deficit or spending cuts. This new revenue stream would have shored up government spending and spurred private sector growth. 

 :moose: Half kidding.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2012)

>Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.

Please expand your thesis.  I'm curious to learn whether that is more than just a throwaway line.


----------



## Haletown (17 Sep 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Then you have drunk the kool aid and probably never read Marx in your life. That is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable. It's a pathetic sound bite that has no proof what so ever behind it.
> 
> Obama is moderate and much further right than the Canadian *Conservative* Prime Minister.



When you get around to reading Obama's Dreams, you might have a hard time reconciling your statement with Obama's own description of how much he grew up and learned while attending lectures from hardcore Marxist professors and attending the rallies and joining the Clubs  at Occidental, the most Marxist friendly university in the USA.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/who-were-barack-obamas-marxist-professors/?singlepage=true

And he was a New Party member.


Somehow I don't think his background and current political philosophy is to the right of PMSH and his education certainly is certainly far, far more Leftist.  And I haven't heard about PM Harper having a card carrying member forge Communist Party of the USA as his mentor during his formative teen years.

But everyone gets to believe that which they chose to . . . .


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Sep 2012)

I read an article the other day which offered to exchange President Obama for Prime Minister Harper. I would take the deal,but I wonder if Canadians would make the swap ?

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/13/ita-a-no-brainer-trade-harper-for-obama-pm-has-the-anointed-one-beat-hands-down


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> DNC gaffe......
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112/



Now, the "Turkish Stars" jet team makes an apearance...........

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/fighter-jets-in-democratic-conventions-military-montage-were-turkish-not-american/



> *Fighter jets in Democratic convention’s military montage were Turkish, not American*
> 
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/fighter-jets-in-democratic-conventions-military-montage-were-turkish-not-american/#ixzz26mwdwt6Q
> ...


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Today's Democrat Party platform has many similarities with the Communist Party USA.



List them. In detailed form, please.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Please expand your thesis.  I'm curious to learn whether that is more than just a throwaway line.



Reagan wanted to tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax. Reagan increased taxes and spending(stimulus) to combat a recession in 1982. Reagan improved the solvency of social security at Democratic urgings and acted in a bipartisan manner to increase revenues. At the end of his administration he passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act and raised taxes to pay for it. It was repealed by Bush Sr for being too socialist. Though Reagan lowered taxes quite a bit one time he raised them on roughly ten occasions. He did not balance the budget and was still in deficit when he left office. Most of his tax increases were on the top 10%. He greatly increased government spending and brought in over 60% more total tax revenues by overheating the economy while increasing the marginal tax rate less than 3%. Even though he took in 60% more total revenue he grew the national debt by 11%. 

When a Lebanese marine base was bombed he left the country. That's right, Reagan's solution was to cut and run. He pressured Ferdinand Marcos to step down. He supported the unionist Solidarity movement in Poland. He tried to transition our dictators to democracies in Bolivia, Honduras, Argentine and Brazil. He placated Iran by not just selling them arms but donating them, though of course he was doing the same with Iraq.

At the end of Reagan's term taxes were 18% of GDP. Under Obama it is down to 14.8%. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Obama reduced Social Securities revenues by 105 billion a year. Obama wanted to decrease capital gains taxes on small business to ZERO. Obama passed the National Defense Authorization Act which allows indefinite detention of US citizens by the military. After being struck down 3 times by judges the Obama administration is appealing again. He has refuse to restore habeas corpus, used the espionage act 6 times on whistle blowers, kept Gitmo open and started assassinating US citizens abroad. Obama gets more donations than any other Pres in history. Not from commies. From Wall Street. One of Regan's largest initial donors was the Teamster's Union. Obama even took over 118,000$ from Bain Capital this election. He is a Wall Street lap dog, not a rabid commie. It's obvious his policies are further right than Reagan.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2012)

This is an entertaining read. In 2010 the CPUSA sued the Democrats for stealing their platform. ;D
Not alot is different in 2012.The democrats did try to eliminate God and Jerusalem from the platform but they didnt want to be labeled Godless or ant-Israel [although they are].

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/communists-sue-democratic-party-for-stealing-platform-t5149.html


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is an entertaining read. In 2010 the CPUSA sued the Democrats for stealing their platform. ;D
> Not alot is different in 2012.The democrats did try to eliminate God and Jerusalem from the platform but they didnt want to be labeled Godless or ant-Israel [although they are].
> 
> http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/communists-sue-democratic-party-for-stealing-platform-t5149.html



Still waiting. CPUSA's platform is readily available on the Internet. You can have a read quite easily. You'll find it is in no way similar. I don't recall the DNC calling for nationalization of banks, railroads, or anything else. I don't seem to find anything in their policies about class struggles or anything else. Funny enough, there's nothing "anti-God" in CPUSA's platform that I saw, and while the Democrats didn't actually remove references to gods from anything, I suspect at lot of them would see getting religion out of politics as a step forward for any country. But they defer to those who don't, and that's fine.

As for Jerusalem, that's a red herring. The United States, and virtually no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That's while you'll find embassies is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. Neither party in the US is likely to change that, either.

On a more amusing note, how about that series of own goals by Romney in those videos that have surfaced? Expect those to be heavily publicized for the next few weeks. At this rate, I have to wonder when Obama For America is going to offer Mr. Romney a job.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Still waiting. CPUSA's platform is readily available on the Internet. You can have a read quite easily. You'll find it is in no way similar. I don't recall the DNC calling for nationalization of banks, railroads, or anything else. I don't seem to find anything in their policies about class struggles or anything else. Funny enough, there's nothing "anti-God" in CPUSA's platform that I saw, and while the Democrats didn't actually remove references to gods from anything, I suspect at lot of them would see getting religion out of politics as a step forward for any country. But they defer to those who don't, and that's fine.
> 
> As for Jerusalem, that's an idiotic red herring. The United States, and virtually no other country in the world recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That's while you'll find embassies is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. Neither party in the US is likely to change that, either.
> 
> On a more amusing note, how about that series of own goals by Romney in those videos that have surfaced? Expect those to be heavily publicized for the next few weeks. At this rate, I have to wonder when Obama For America is going to offer Mr. Romney a job.



It MAY be a red herring, but there's no need for 'idiotic'.

I'm getting tired of these warnings.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2012)

Actually Romney's figures are correct.There are that many americans who pay no tax at all. As I have stated before under this President more people are on social security disability and food stamps than at any time in the past. Obama recently eliminated the requirement for those on welfare to find work,which was instituted under Clinton.


----------



## Haletown (18 Sep 2012)

Meanwhile, back on the campaign, the American MSM finds a new distraction to hyperventilate over as Romney simply speaks the truth about American voters.

Meanwhile, the Muslim world burns with anger and hatred for America.

Remember when Obama said this:

"I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, the [Muslim] world looks at America differently"

Can't fault Obama for telling the truth.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2012)

Redeye, cupper are you going to vote in the US election?

Every vote counts and Obama will need your vote.


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Actually Romney's figures are correct.There are that many americans who pay no tax at all. As I have stated before under this President more people are on social security disability and food stamps than at any time in the past. Obama recently eliminated the requirement for those on welfare to find work,which was instituted under Clinton.



Whether Romney's numbers are correct or not is irrelevant. It's what he said about them that will resonate. Funny enough, I seem to recall a guy who thought working families being off the tax roll was a good thing. Reagan, I think his name was. That's not the only gaffe in that priceless video, though. The whole thing about Palestine is also showing what was becoming clear to a lot of observers about Governor Romney, that he's out of his depth on foreign policy.

And just for good measure, President Obama eliminating the requirement for those on welfare to find work? Well, that's simply not true, regardless of who says it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

It's no wonder Governor Romney had a guy on his campaign team say they won't let fact checkers run their campaign. They can't afford to, since they're lying so much. However, they're also being caught out on it.

They lie about the "apology tour" that never happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/31/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-began-his-presidency/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/

They lie about the effort to make sure more Ohioans could vote (I've never understood how anyone could buy this one!)

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/aug/06/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-lawsuit-filed-president-obamas-ca/

They grievously misrepresented what President Obama said in the "you didn't build that" speech (though I love that during the RNC their "We built this!" sign was right underneath the National Debt Counter, most of which they're responsible for.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/

They lie about their plans for Obamacare and Medicare.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-repealing-health-law-sav/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/09/mitt-romney/health-law-puts-government-between-patients-and-do/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/29/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-means-20-million-americ/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/mitt-romney/romney-says-only-obama-has-cut-medicare/

Now, fair to say that fact checkers have hit President Obama hard too - though with far less Pants On Fire lies, and most not recent, but I expect that excerpts of the video will factor heavily in the President's campaign over the next few weeks, and it seems a lot of conservatives do too - David Frum in particular has been producing some excellent criticism, but the campaign in general is getting shredded.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Sep 2012)

OK FOLKS,   LET ME SPELL THIS OUT FOR EVERYONE.  

IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE POSTED HERE BY ANY OF THE USUAL SUSPECTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM THAT IS AT ALL DEROGITORY I WILL LOCK THIS THREAD AND ANY THAT START AFTERWARDS UNTIL THE ELECTION IS OVER.

.................and I must add, I will enjoy it.


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Redeye, cupper are you going to vote in the US election?
> 
> Every vote counts and Obama will need your vote.



No, I can't. My wife can, and will, and is involved in helping overseas voters do so. I will be in the US around election time, and may well volunteer to help get out the vote, as doing so is perfectly legal under US law. I do have to make sure it's kosher under Canadian law, but I can't see anything that suggests it isn't. But I'll also be on vacation and probably have better things to do. Like celebrate on the night of November 6th, when if all goes according to plan, I'll be in New Orleans, probably a good place for it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Whether Romney's numbers are correct or not is irrelevant. It's what he said about them that will resonate. Funny enough, I seem to recall a guy who thought working families being off the tax roll was a good thing. Reagan, I think his name was. That's not the only gaffe in that priceless video, though. The whole thing about Palestine is also showing what was becoming clear to a lot of observers about Governor Romney, that he's out of his depth on foreign policy.
> 
> ...




You're quite right: the 30% who weren't going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway, under any circumstances, will now be secure in their view. The 30% who would vote for Romney no matter what will also have their views confirmed. The _*Big* Question_ is: how do the other 40% feel? Do they share Romney's view that the Palestinians do not want peace? Do they agree that too many Americans are taking, taking, taking ... taking too much?

I don't know, but I suspect that Romney will get more "yeas" than "nays" on those two points.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney are out of their depths on foreign policy, but I doubt that the latter would be any worse than the former.

Finally: Prime Minister Netanyahu is being rude ~ it is unseemly for a foreign head of government to intrude, publicly, into the American political process.


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Finally: Prime Minister Netanyahu is being rude ~ it is unseemly for a foreign head of government to intrude, publicly, into the American political process.



Agree completely, but it's playing into the completely fictitious "Obama hates Israel" meme. Netanyahu seems to be angling for America to fight a war for him, a war for which he has little support at home.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2012)

Kim Campbell was pilloried for saying that an election campaign isn't the time to discuss policy, in the US it seems the Media has swallowed that trope whole. The interesting point isn't what Governor Romney said, but the fact that he has said essentially the same thing throughout the campaign without it being an issue. Timing?:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/secret-romney-tape-means-we-can-finally



> *Secret Romney Tape Means We Can Finally Stop Talking About Obama's Failed Foreign & Domestic Policy!*
> Nick Gillespie|Sep. 18, 2012 8:31 am
> 
> Let's not mince words: President Barack Obama is one lucky bastard.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2012)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 09:45:40

    Redeye, cupper are you going to vote in the US election?

    Every vote counts and Obama will need your vote.


Redeye: 





> No, I can't. My wife can, and will, and is involved in helping overseas voters do so. I will be in the US around election time, and may well volunteer to help get out the vote, as doing so is perfectly legal under US law. I do have to make sure it's kosher under Canadian law, but I can't see anything that suggests it isn't. But I'll also be on vacation and probably have better things to do. Like celebrate on the night of November 6th, when if all goes according to plan, I'll be in New Orleans, probably a good place for it.



Yes you can vote. You don't need Voter ID to vote.

To verify, go to the Department of Justice. Note you will need photo ID to get in.


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 09:45:40
> 
> Redeye, cupper are you going to vote in the US election?
> 
> ...



That would nevertheless be illegal, which is, I suppose, why pretty much no one does it.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That would nevertheless be illegal, which is, I suppose, why pretty much no one does it.


:rofl:

Of course, nobody does anything because its illegal, right?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're quite right: the 30% who weren't going to vote for Mitt Romney anyway, under any circumstances, will now be secure in their view. The 30% who would vote for Romney no matter what will also have their views confirmed. The _*Big* Question_ is: how do the other 40% feel? Do they share Romney's view that the Palestinians do not want peace? Do they agree that too many Americans are taking, taking, taking ... taking too much?
> 
> ...




According to a pretty reliable media source (the _Wall Street Journal_: "Our analysis of the data behind Mr. Romney’s remarks found that almost half of Americans live in a home where at least one member received a government benefit. " So Governor Romney was pretty close to spot on there ... hands up all those who are certain that the Palestinians are really interested in peace - a peace which leaves Israel there, as a neighbour. Anyone? _Bueller?_ Anyone?


----------



## bridges (18 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "...almost half of Americans live in a home where at least one member received a government benefit. " So Governor Romney was pretty close to spot on there ...



So, depending on the average home size, that means anywhere from 1/5 to 1/2 receive a government benefit.  There may be some stats that back up the 47% figure, but that particular stat isn't one of them.

And at any rate, most of the people receiving government benefits no doubt pay various other kinds of taxes as they go about their daily lives.  Mitt seems to be implying that they pay nothing at all.  

It will be interesting to see if this still has traction by Nov. 6.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The democrats did try to eliminate God and Jerusalem from the platform



Probably because it is a political road map not a magic spell.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Sep 2012)

I did a google search for "Americans paying income tax." About half of all Americans do not pay Federal income tax, but may pay other levies.

Check this typical explanation:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I did a google search for "Americans paying income tax." About half of all Americans do not pay Federal income tax, but may pay other levies.
> 
> Check this typical explanation:
> 
> http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm



Search a little more and you'll find a radio address by The Gipper himself explaining why the Earned Income Exclusion (the American equivalent of our Personal Exemption) is a good thing. And plenty of other studies to support it. I'm having Internet connectivity troubles or I'd find the article and link it from WaPo. That concept, pus generous tax credits for having children are largely responsible for that large swath of the population who wind up not paying income tax. They still pay plenty of tax though.


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Of course, nobody does anything because its illegal, right?



Despite the tiresome meme that voter fraud is a significant, widespread problem, there's been no evidence it's actually happening, but there's been at least one open admission that the purpose of new strict voter identification laws is to disenfranchise voters, specifically those likely to support President Obama. That was in Pennsylvania, where a court has just vacated a ruling on their strict new voter ID rules that were expected to strip as many as 750,000 Pennsylvanians of the right to vote. That number is likely ridiculously high/inflated, but I find it troublesome all the same.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ..... a ruling on their strict new voter ID rules


Maybe dye their fingers once they vote.







I mean, if Iraq can figure it out....


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I mean, if Iraq can figure it out....








YES!!!


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Sep 2012)

> I don't see a Romney Administration having any better shot at improving the Middle East situation than the previous 5 Administrations.
> 
> It's a problem whose roots go deep, back to European Colonialism. Short of letting the whole thing go up in flames, and resolve itself back into the precolonial tribal separations, all anyone will be able to do is act as a global firefighter.



Ignore the clearly biased source and listen to the recording:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/14/FLASHBACK-Obama-The-Day-Im-Inaugurated-Muslim-Hostility-Will-Ease


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2012)

In the same frame as Journeyman, don't you think it is weird that the US (and others) expend blood and treasure so that other countries can have free elections? Free elections, where to ensure that the elections are fair, voters require ID and are "fingered" to ensure they do not disrupt the vote.

In the US, the federal government that oversees the expenditure of blood and treasure, fights tooth and nail against any form of voter ID, BUT demands photo ID to get into buildings to see the representative that (they) voted in.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In the US, the federal government that oversees the expenditure of blood and treasure, fights tooth and nail against any form of voter ID, BUT demands photo ID to get into buildings to see the representative that (they) voted in.


Not to be redundant, but...


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

One thing that cannot be disputed is the fact that 75% of all money spent thus far in the election has been spent in support of Mitt Romney (or against Obama), yet he trails in most (if not all) polls.

And even if you don't believe the poll numbers showing Obama with a lead, you have to question how so much money has has so little effect.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

>Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.

So, Reagan took concrete steps to achieve more tax balance (capital gains taxed comparably to income) and improve fiscal health (eg. improving solvency of social security) and was able to work with Democrats in Congress (repeatedly, although they did screw him over on spending cuts in exchange for tax increases).  What is the evidence this made him more "like Jimmy Carter"?  Obama is on record for wanting tax increases purely for the sake of an immeasurable "fairness" irrespective of whether the actual tax take increases or falls (eg. tax avoidance measures increase) and shares with Congress equal blame for not working outside his own party ("I won").

Reagan showed sufficient flexibility to work outside his party to raise and lower taxes at different points.  Obama?

Reagan fought in the context of the Cold War, apparently successfully, while Carter's tenure was marked by continued Soviet expansion and aggression.  Obama's Middle Eastern foreign policy has become a shambles.  That makes Reagan more like Carter than Obama in what way?

"Under Obama", tax take is down because the biggest hit to incomes was among the largest incomes, belonging to people who pay most of the taxes.  (When more of the economic activity takes place among people taxed at lower rates, the tax take can be - and is - lower even when the amount of economic activity increases.)  The downside of a highly progressive tax structure (which Obama wants more of) is excessive vulnerability to downturns.  That's beside the point, though: how does tax take as a fraction of GDP make Reagan "more like Carter", given that it is a function of people and events largely outside the control of a president?

Obama tax policy - other than his desire to increase taxes on "the rich" for "fairness" - is driven by events, and mostly bipartisan.  His is not the sole guiding hand.  Neither was Reagan's, but the difference in terms of realism and practical achievements should be obvious.  "Do, or do not."  Reagan "did".

As president, Obama doesn't "pass" acts, he signs them.

>It's obvious his policies are further right than Reagan. 

LEFT < increasing collectivism/statism; increasing individualism > RIGHT

Given all the examples cited of Obama's fondness for executive authoritarianism, it is abundantly clear he is a creature of the left.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

>The whole thing about Palestine is also showing what was becoming clear to a lot of observers about Governor Romney, that he's out of his depth on foreign policy.

Not as out-of-depth as the other guy who came to the office with no experience, has since had three and a half years to get his feet wet, and still committed a stunning gaffe ("Egypt - ally or enemy") from a position of actual responsibility instead of mere observation.


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

David Brooks does a good job explaining how Romney got it wrong.

*Thurston Howell Romney*

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0



> In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.
> 
> In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

>And even if you don't believe the poll numbers showing Obama with a lead, you have to question how so much money has has so little effect.

How much "in kind" are the compliant media in Obama's corner worth?  Advertising time and space tend to be smaller and shorter than programs and articles.

How much traction has Obama's gaffe with real consequences ("Egypt - ally or enemy") or Susan Rice's blatant lying about events in Libya ("not pre-meditated") gotten compared to any of the manufactured "gaffes" or "campaign crises" of Romney?  How much attention is focused on actual real-world problems (eg. economy, foreign events, gross abuses of civil liberties and constitutional protections) by the "reality-based community"  instead of behaving as if they were a bunch of paparazzi on the trail of royal breasts?


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

Same argument can be made for Fox News as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maddow-fox-news-a-romney-campaign-subsidiary-135863.html?hp=r18

At least the non Fox media pundits aren't employed by both the network and the campaign at the same time.

The disparity that you point out essentially comes down to the fact that the Obama Campaign is better run than the Romney Campaign.

As for manufactured gaffes, I don't buy the argument that the media could make Romney say or do the things he has. The media is just not that omnipotent and all powerful.

And if the Romney campaign keeps doubling down rather than challenge the statements, it's no longer a gaffe, but has moved to the realm of policy, personal belief or campaign platform.


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

Romney's campaign needs to swing for the fences and needs to do it now.

Big problem is that absentee and mail in ballots are already going out in some of the swing states, (some are already being returned as well) which means that voters are already making their decisions. 

At a time when the Romney Campaign appears (or is) in disarray.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2012)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443995604578002523312508286.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

17 Sep12

*Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Fourth Estate, Still Thrilling to the Spirit of '08*
_
The spectacle of reporters over the past week hounding Mitt Romney for speaking his mind does not come as a surprise._

After an astounding week of ardent media focus on Mitt Romney's criticism of the initial U.S. response to mob assaults on American diplomatic outposts, the furor is dying down—but it's not over by any means. Nor was the message that the furor sent a negligible one.

Condemnations of Mr. Romney had come thick and fast. He had been "crass and tone deaf," in the view of MSNBC's Chuck Todd. He had committed a "slander" against the president, according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Journalists in pursuit of this story—to the exclusion of virtually all else going on—were quick to point out that denunciations of Mr. Romney were by no means limited to Democrats, that criticism came from Republican commentators too. This fact was hardly surprising—the sanctimony of the virtuous knows no political bounds.

The spectacle of those hordes of journalists in single-minded pursuit of the Romney story day after day—days that saw the killing of four Americans, embassies burned and trashed, mobs of the faithful running amok—shouldn't have been surprising either. It's the most dramatic indicator yet that in this election the pack journalism of four years ago is alive, and well, and in full cry again.

Especially wonderful to hear were all the charges about Mr. Romney's political opportunism and tone-deafness—this after three days of a Democratic convention distinguished by shameless, nonstop exploitation of the military raid that put an end to Osama bin Laden. It is impossible to imagine any other president in American history orchestrating even two minutes—much less three days—of the self-glorification and wallowing in a victory won by the nation's armed forces that was on display at the convention. If any of this orgy of boasting in the interest of a political campaign caught the attention of those commentators whose sensibilities were so offended by Mr. Romney last week, we haven't heard about it.

The governor's offense, as the world knows, had to do with his blast at the eye-popping apologias that had come from our Cairo embassy while mobs of the faithful were gathering to wreak havoc over a crude YouTube video insulting to Islam—apologies that Mr. Romney linked to the general inclinations of the Obama administration.

For this he was pilloried as having criticized the president in a time of urgent crisis. Or, as Andrea Mitchell put it Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Romney had come out with his statement when the State Department didn't know where Ambassador Chris Stevens was—"the body was missing."

At the time of Mr. Romney's initial statement, of course, no word had as yet come about Stevens's fate or those of his murdered colleagues. Which didn't prevent members of the press and pundits from proclaiming, all the rest of the week, that Mr. Romney had embarked on a political attack while the world was aflame and the president embroiled in the crisis. The same president who would, in the midst of that crisis, go tootling off to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser.

By the time the presidential campaign had ended four years ago, the media's role in driving the outcome had become a fact too obvious to dispute. The impact of the journalistic horde's devotion to the Democratic candidates was clear, the evidence vivid—especially in the case of reporters transported to a state of ecstasy over candidate Obama's speeches. One New York Times reporter wrote of being so moved he could barely keep from weeping. Not for nothing did the role of the press become a news story in itself—an embarrassing one that might, serious people thought, serve as a caution during future campaigns.

In 2012 Barack Obama is no longer delivering thrilling speeches, but an unembarrassed press corps is still available, in full prosecutorial mode when it comes to coverage of the Republican challenger. If you hadn't heard the story about Mitt Romney's bullying treatment of another student during his prep-school days—1965, that is—the Washington Post had a story for you, a lengthy investigative piece. On the matter of Mr. Obama's school records, locked away and secured against investigation, the press maintains a serene incuriosity.

Mr. Obama continues to receive the benefits of a supportive media—one prone to dark suspicions about his challenger. The heavy ooze of moral superiority emanating from all the condemnations of Mr. Romney last week, all the breathless media reports on those condemnations, did not begin with something he said last week. But the moral superiority was certainly on its gaudiest display. Mr. Romney's tone was offensive, unpresidential, his critics charged.

Yet it is the president of the United States—the same one who presented himself as the man who would transcend political partisanship because we were all Americans—who has for most of his term set about dividing the nation by class, by the stoking of resentments. Who mocks "millionaires and billionaires." Who makes it clear that he considers himself the president of the other—the good—Americans. How's that for presidential tone?

No one could have missed the importance to Mr. Obama's campaign of the class-war themes that reverberated continually during the Democratic convention speeches. The references to "millionaires and billionaires" are by now a reliable applause line for the campaign. Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm underscored the point with an address whose opening line declared, with a strange note of defiance—it wasn't the only thing strange about the speech—that the heart of America wasn't to be found in corporate board rooms.

But it is Vice President Biden who has been the most faithful purveyor of Mr. Obama's class-war theme. Earnest, affable, with a bottomless cache of wise maxims from his mother and father, the persuasive Joe Biden excels at explaining, in his accomplished infomercial tones, how the other side wants to ensnare you, the poor and the helpless. And how, I promise you, folks, Barack Obama isn't going to let them.

Mitt Romney isn't going to have an easy time defeating a president with Mr. Obama's advantages. A friendly press corps surpasses all wealth, sayeth the sages. The governor will stand a far better chance if he takes to heart the lesson of the past week, when he seems to have recognized, at last, that there are issues in addition to the economy—matters like foreign policy, Iran, America's stance in the world—that he must address. In the weeks that remain to this election, he will have to speak to those matters in depth and in unflinching terms that set him apart from his opponent. And he'll have to do it often.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board. 
Dorothy Rabinowitz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American conservative journalist and commentator. She was born in New York City, and was educated at Queens College and New York University.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

I've never thought Fox was coy about its bias.  It isn't as if anyone has come forward to describe details of a right-wing Journolist.  What man has done, man can aspire to do again.  Collusion isn't even necessary; all the willing water carriers need is to remember and apply the general idea - spike the unfavourable; push the favourable.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

>The disparity that you point out essentially comes down to the fact that the Obama Campaign is better run than the Romney Campaign.

The media are part of the Obama campaign?  I didn't know it was that explicit.


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The disparity that you point out essentially comes down to the fact that the Obama Campaign is better run than the Romney Campaign.
> 
> The media are part of the Obama campaign?  I didn't know it was that explicit.



I torn between  :rofl: and  :

In case it wasn't clear, the disparity I was referring to was that the real *AND* perceived bad press that Romney gets is more of his own (and his campaign's) making.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I torn between  :rofl: and  :
> 
> In case it wasn't clear, the disparity I was referring to was that the real *AND* perceived bad press that Romney gets is more of his own (and his campaign's) making.



Such as reporting the attack on the Libyan consulate and the death of a US ambasador on page A4 of the NYT? Really Cupper, look at how long it took for the Administration to make any sort of response, and wonder why the media is so silent on that and the general collapse of the Administration's middle east policy?

Remember how gas prices were so prominent bacak in news reporting in 2007-08 (at least until the Bush Administration opened Federal lands for drilling and collapsed gas prices). How many US legacy media outlets are running daily reports on high gas prices in 2011-12?

Remember how the Bush administration was constantly criticised for the jobless recovery, with unemployment at 5%? How many media outlets are constantly harping on the 8% figure (which has been fairly constant over 43 months), much less the U3 (11%) figure...

So long as the press remains silent on the economy and runs every distraction they can raise, then I would have to say that Brad is far closer to the truth


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Sep 2012)

As four Americans died, the POTUS flew off, in Air Force One, to Las Vegas, to campaign, where, he compared his campaign workers to the four slain in Libya.

He flew to New York today, in Air Force One, to tape a engagement on the David Letterman show.

To busy to meet with Netanyahu next week. The POTUS could have waited until 24/25 Sep when he is in NY for a UN meeting, to tape for Letterman instead of flying there twice in Air Force One and ALL that huge security package, etc.


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember how gas prices were so prominent bacak in news reporting in 2007-08 (at least until the Bush Administration opened Federal lands for drilling and collapsed gas prices). How many US legacy media outlets are running daily reports on high gas prices in 2011-12?



Bush opened up offshore drilling in July of 2008.

Price of gas dropped from a high of $4.16 the week of July 14th to a low of $1.71 the week of Dec 15th.

However, from July to August the price dropped $0.46 them started to climb again to peak at $3.88 on Sept 15th, the week of the economic shit storm. As the economy shrank over the next 3 months, prices of both oil and gas tanked as demand dropped and supplies were left sitting.

Now, if you can realistically show me that the price of gas dropped because Bush opened up drilling, which would have zero impact on oil and gas supplies for at least 2 to 3 years, then I will bow to you sir. Until then we will just have to agree to disagree.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Such as reporting the attack on the Libyan consulate and the death of a US ambasador on page A4 of the NYT? Really Cupper, look at how long it took for the Administration to make any sort of response, and wonder why the media is so silent on that and the general collapse of the Administration's middle east policy?



Mitt Romney jumps the gun, and inserts himself in a crisis that was still unraveling, when he had no call to do so. The Administration took a more cautious approach. Why would you expect anything else? I will agree that the Middle East Policy of the current Administration appears to be taking a shot in the cajones, but show me a time in the last 3 decades when it hasn't. Hell, even Romney back in May's fundraiser essentially said there is nothing that could be done, and would not involve his Administration in Mid East issues to any great extent.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember how the Bush administration was constantly criticised for the jobless recovery, with unemployment at 5%? How many media outlets are constantly harping on the 8% figure (which has been fairly constant over 43 months), much less the U3 (11%) figure...



I never bought into the media torch fest during the post 9/11 recession about a jobless recovery. It is generally accepted that an unemployment rate below 4% is unrealistic, as this is the limit where everyone who is willing and or capable of working are all employed. So a rate of 5% isn't really something to worry about when the economy shrinks.

But most of the mainstream media outlets I follow do address the jobless rates constantly, especially when the monthly reports are released. And every month for the last 43 months, they have said that the Obama Administration is in trouble, and could lose in November if positive news doesn't happen soon.

So if that is the case, explain to me why the polls show Obama ahead of Romney in all swing states except North Carolina?

I come back to my original premise: Romney's piss poor campaign performance. This should be the GOP's election to win, and they are barely keeping their heads above water.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Sep 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Mitt Romney jumps the gun, and inserts himself in a crisis that was still unraveling, *when he had no call to do so.*



You do realise that he's running for President of the United States, right?  I'm fairly certain it's his place to comment, whether what he said was right or not.  But had he said nothing, I'm certain the press would have called him on it.


----------



## Haletown (19 Sep 2012)

Rifleman62
 said:
			
		

> As four Americans died, the POTUS flew off, in Air Force One, to Las Vegas, to campaign, where, he compared his campaign workers to the four slain in Libya.
> 
> He flew to New York today, in Air Force One, to tape a engagement on the David Letterman show.
> 
> To busy to meet with Netanyahu next week. The POTUS could have waited unit 24/25 Sep when he is in NY for a UN meeting, to tape for letterman instead of flying there twice in Air Force One and ALL that huge security package, etc.



If George Bush had done this, the lame street media would have gone Mach 1 apoplectic before clearing the tower.

When their guy does it, not so much as a peep.  

The complete collapse of the USA's middle east foreign policy, dead American citizens, complete failure of the government to react to clear and multiple warnings and the media worried about whether Romney jumped the gun.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Sep 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> If George Bush had done this, the lame street media would have gone Mach 1 apoplectic before clearing the tower.


They did go apeshit when he wasn't in New Orleans ten minutes after the floods when he was POTUS.  Hell, they even blamed him for the floods IIRC.

(Forget for the moment that Katrina's devestation was due to shitty civil engineering...but I digress)


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Sep 2012)

There has been some talk of polling and that they show Obama leading in all cases.  What was the polling like prior to our most recent federal election?  I'm not 100% certain, but I think they were off by a wide margain.  Could it be the case that the polls in this case are off due to skewed or biased questioning?

I have seen one youtube vid where a guy received a polling question when he wasn't home, and it was recorded on his answering machine.  You know, "press 1 for Obama, press 2 for Romney, press 3 for someone else"...that kind of thing.  Of course, he had no response, but the call came back after a pause and said "press 1 is you are definitely voting for Obama, press 2 for fairly certain...."


So, it took a nil response as a vote for Mr. Obama.  I'm not saying that this is pandemic, but could it be indicative of a skew, in favour of either candidate, mind you, intentional or otherwise?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

I think you all need to put the US presidential race in focus:







  =  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Thanks to all the gods, it will all be over, however briefly, in seven weeks and I can go back to contemplating the important things on the TV news:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Sep 2012)

Looks like there's free time in the E.R. Campbell world today   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Looks like there's free time in the E.R. Campbell world today   ;D




I really miss Broke Baldwin, her legs, anyway, but I cannot bear to watch TV news, not even BBC or Global, because they are all full, indeed OVER-FULL of Tweedle Dumb vs. Tweedle Dumber - one of whom will, sadly, almost certainly be POTUS for the next four years.

The entire US 2012 electoral process is about many tens of millions of nervous, confused people choosing the least of several evils.

But I am confident that in 2013 the USA will have:

1. A second rate President; and

2. A third rate (I'me being charitable) Congress.

__________
P.S. I need to go to the Mess for lunch anesthesia.


----------



## Haletown (19 Sep 2012)

Well there is no NHL so we gotta have a go at something else.  Global Warming has collapsed so politics it is.  The entertainment value is excellent.

"OK, let's just pull a few things together from recent days:

1) Before a wild protest mob storms the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to remove the Stars and Stripes, the embassy tweets an apology for an anti-Islam video it had nothing to do with but finds no time to defend or explain freedom of speech, even hateful speech.

2) In Libya three days after a warning of upcoming violence, the American ambassador is allowed to go to lawless Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 with hardly any security where some five dozen terrorists catch them in the bungalow consulate, engage in a prolonged firefight involving rocket-propelled grenades and mortars that just happened to be at hand, resulting in the death of four Americans, including the much-reIspected ambassador.

3) President Obama expresses appreciation for their sacrifice, urges calm and says some Libyans helped get the dead ambassador to a hospital. He says now after such unanticipated violence on the anniversary of 9/11, he's ordered U.S. embassy security beefed up in lots of places because you can't be too careful after four people are dead. He takes no questions.

4) To demonstrate his grief, executive expertise and concern for appearances at such a sad, tragic time,, Obama flies to Vegas for some campaign fundraising.

5) Later, his obedient ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, maintains on four different television shows that the deaths and Cairo riot on 9/11 are all attributed to the anti-Islam video, which has been on YouTube most of the summer, and she knows from her best information they have no connection to 9/11 or terrorism. (Watch those weasel words; her best information could be the worst available.)

6) This, of course, is the administration's talking point position because anything else would have to confront the reality that Obama's policy of soft diplomacy and nice-guy engagement is crumbling before voters' eyes just seven weeks before the election and three years after he modestly promised to turn Muslim views of America to the positive.

7) Obama press secretary Jay Carney explains with a straight face that he has no evidence to indicate the deaths are anything but protesters gone wild.

8) Libya's acting president flatly contradicts the Obama team, saying the Benghazi murders were clearly well-planned and organized with support fire and direct fire, including well-armed foreign nationals who entered the country for that purpose from Mali and Algeria.




http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/091912-626228-obama-mideast-diplomacy-collapses-and-romney-gets-blamed.htm


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2012)

> Well there is no NHL so we gotta have a go at something else.  Global Warming has collapsed so politics it is.  The entertainment value is excellent.



Hmmm....conspiracy? Election coming up...how to get people focused....they watch NFL, NHL and the hockey stick is broken....

soooo....can't do much about the NFL...it's going great guns.... :'(

now, the NHL....they're negotiating...hey why not? 

meh...we've gotten all the milage we are going to get out of the hockey stick graph..... :


----------



## bridges (19 Sep 2012)

I'm good as long as MLB is still running.  As someone once said, "sports allow us to care passionately about something that really doesn't matter."



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> ...three years after he modestly promised to turn Muslim views of America to the positive.



And there's some work to do vice versa as well... whatever happened to that TLC show "All-American Muslim" - did it get cancelled?

I don't know how the country can function with a two-year election campaign.  I, too, will be glad when it's over.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I'm good as long as MLB is still running.  As someone once said, "sports allow us to care passionately about something that really doesn't matter."
> ...




Which, as I have said, pretty much sums up the 2012 elections (presidential, congressional, state and local) ... at least in so far as we, Canadians, are concerned.


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I am confident that in 2013 the USA will have:
> 
> 1. A second rate President; and
> 
> 2. A third rate (I'me being charitable) Congress.



You forgot:

3. Candidates kick off their campaigns for the 2016 Presidential Election.  :surrender:


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2012)

Well, now we have a reason for all of Canada to worry about an Obama victory.

*Obama administration denies plan to invade Canada*

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-administration-denies-plan-to-invade-canada-135992.html?hp=r14



> The State Department is denying that a planned closed-door meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexico Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa is about a secret plan to invade Canada.
> 
> Asked why the meeting was closed to press and what the two officials were discussing, a reporter asked: "This isn’t some secret thing to invade Canada or something like that?"
> 
> "No, no, no," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said during a Tuesday briefing to laughter from reporters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2012)

Shades of "Buster" Brown.






Colonel James Sutherland Brown (1881 to 1951)


----------



## Haletown (19 Sep 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> You forgot:
> 
> 3. Candidates kick off their campaigns for the 2016 Presidential Election.  :surrender:



That campaign started when Slick Willy Clinton bought a whole bunch of DNC IOU's by backing Obama, a man he despises.

Billy but the bullet and made the case for Obama this year so the Party will owe him and Hillary in 2016.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2012)

Should anyone be surprised anymore? This is maybe not as blatent as Legacy Media cutting away when speakers like Mia Love were speaking at the RNC (and not archiving their speeches either), but it is also harder to counter. Politicians need to have full time recording staff who can release their complete and unedited remarks on YouTube and other sites to preempt selective cutting and pasting. Other forms of manipulation (like denying you said such a thing when it is on record and posted on other sites) will be similarly diminished:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/complete-video-of-romney-missing-1-2-minutes-of-remarks-on-the-47/



> *“Complete” video of Romney missing 1-2 minutes of remarks on the 47%*
> posted at 10:41 am on September 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> The last 48 hours of media commentary has evinced an interesting, and entirely unsurprising, double standard, or perhaps triple standard.  When undercover videos of ACORN and NPR by James O’Keefe or of Planned Parenthood by Lila Rose get published, the media immediately insinuates that they contain deceptive editing and demand that the full videos get released — even though media organizations like the broadcast networks rarely if ever operate by that same standard. Mother Jones ripped O’Keefe at the time for not providing all of the video from his undercover exposé of NPR (via Breitbart):
> ...



But should a Democrat say or do something, lets see how it gets covered:

http://twitchy.com/2012/09/19/lapdogs-spin-mitchell-wont-air-obamas-not-authenticated-except-by-obama-campaign-redistribution-audio/



> Lapdogs spin, Mitchell won’t air Obama’s ‘not authenticated,’ except by Obama campaign, redistribution audio
> Posted at 2:34 pm on September 19, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments
> 
> Matt K. Lewis @mattklewis
> ...



Note: the odd formatting is due to the inclusion of "tweets" in the blog posting


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2012)

Wow, he doesn't know the national debt is $16 trillion dollars (the figure was reached when the DNC was underway) and pretends that the trillion dollar deficits were not the work of his Administration and the Democrat majority congress. Too bad his nose doesn't grow at the same time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6D55384wiUg

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/is-barack-obama-americas-most-dishonest-politician.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo



> *Is Barack Obama America’s Most Dishonest Politician?*
> 
> A lot of politicians are dishonest, but Barack Obama may be in a league by himself. He appeared on the David Letterman show last night, and Letterman asked him about the national debt (somewhat surprisingly). Obama’s answer was a masterpiece of prevarication. He described how the debt originated, and claimed, falsely, that he inherited a $1 trillion deficit. In fact, this country had never run a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion until FY 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. (And, no, Bush isn’t to blame for it; the Democratic Congress waited until Obama was in office to pass the vast majority of the bloated spending for that fiscal year.) Letterman, to his credit, went on to ask Obama how much the national debt actually is. Obama evidently knew that if he said $16 trillion his audience would be horrified, so, incredibly, he pretended not to know! You have to see it to believe it:
> 
> Barack Obama is a world-class liar. At least, we’d better hope he is a world class liar, because if he really has no idea what the national debt is, we are in even worse trouble.


----------



## Redeye (20 Sep 2012)

I have to admit, I nearly threw my back out laughing reading about alleged "selective editing" on Breitbart's site. Oh, the irony.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Removed, not really needed - just want to show who I'm replying to.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2012)

Long article bt the Washington Examiner which finally examines the past of Barrack Obama. Too bad the legacy media didn't do this sort of reporting in, say, 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/introduction-the-obama-you-dont-know/article/2508080#.UFr-ybJ96So

Some highlights:

    From the introduction:

    “Beyond the spin and polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer, but a classic Chicago machine pol.”

    Chapter 1: A childhood of privilege, not hardship

    Michelle Obama says “Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or possessions.” In fact, for much of his life, Barack Obama has enjoyed privileges and opportunities denied to most Americans.

    Chapter 2: Myth of the ‘rock star’ professor

    Though initially popular as a University of Chicago Law School adjunct lecturer, he was not ranking among the top professors, according to student evaluations.

    Chapter 3: The 1997 speech that launched Obama

    His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech got the big headlines, but a previously unreported 1997 Obama speech did far more to launch him with big backers with big bucks.

    Chapter 4: For the slumlord’s defense, Barack Obama, Esq.

    It was a frigid January and the slumlord who put his tenants on the street without going through the required eviction process got off with a $50 fine. His lawyer went on to be elected president of the United States.

    Chapter 5: Obama’s toughest critics on the Left

    Long before he ran for president, radical critics accused Obama of selling out Chicago’s poor to the Daley political machine.

    Chapter 6: The poor people Obama left behind

    Altgeld Gardens housing advocate Hazel Johnson welcomed the young Obama into her kitchen. Then she never heard from him again after he won his first election.

    Chapter 7: The myth of Obama as state senate reformer

    When the real reformers asked for his help, State Sen. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found.

    Chapter 8: Obama’s state pension fund scheme

    It worked for Rev. Jesse Jackson against the Fortune 500, so State Sen. Barack Obama used it to get millions for his friends from Illinois’ biggest public employee pension funds.

    Chapter 9: Obama’s Arab-American network

    Syrian emigrant Tony Rezko had lots of Arab-American friends in the Chicago business community who shared his enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

    Chapter 10: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington

    Surprised by Solyndra? Don’t be, it’s just one of many examples that demonstrate Barack Obama is doing things in Washington the same way he did them in Chicago.


I notice that Redeye is up to his usual attack the messenger song and dance. Notice he does not (because he cannot) deny that there _was_ selective editing applied against Governor Romney. Perhaps if he and others like him were to read the substance of the article there might be some cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Redeye (20 Sep 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I notice that Redeye is up to his usual attack the messenger song and dance. Notice he does not (because he cannot) deny that there _was_ selective editing applied against Governor Romney. Perhaps if he and others like him were to read the substance of the article there might be some cognitive dissonance.



The selective editing silliness is basically smashed here by MoJo - using sources from Politico etc. And Romney's notably not walking back on his assailing 47% of the American public, which includes a lot of seniors, young families who avail themselves of tax credits and deductions that folks like Ronald Reagan were proud of etc.

I also enjoyed reading how most of these "moochers" live in Red States, which is fitting, because at the federal level when it comes to taxation versus allocation of government spending, Red States mooch off Blue States. Anyhow, here is the piece from MoJo, and remember, no having a go at the messenger, because that's unacceptable, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/mitt-romney-says-video-debunked

PREVIOUS | NEXT
→ Elections, Politics, Romney, Top Stories, Video
Romney's Video-Debunking Claim Is…Debunked
—By David Corn| Wed Sep. 19, 2012 4:00 PM PDT
364

Mitt Romney/Flickr
This is getting ridiculous.

After Mother Jones posted video of Mitt Romney sharing remarks with millionaire donors that he would never express to voters—noting that nearly half of the American electorate are moochers and that Romney doesn't believe a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is feasible—Romney did not deny he said what he said. As the cliché goes, he doubled down, saying his remarks were inelegant but a reflection of his views about the rapid growth of entitlement programs in the United States. (Actually, this was a bait-and-switch operation. Romney was not talking policy when he disdainfully described half of the citizenry as parasites and victims.)

On Wednesday afternoon, he went further, with his campaign claiming that the video had been "debunked." In lashing out at the Obama campaign, Romney's crew issued this email:

Today, The Obama Campaign Leveled False Attacks Against Mitt Romney Based On A Debunked And Selectively Edited Video:

Today, Obama Campaign Spokesperson Ben LaBolt Attacked Mitt Romney Based On A Debunked Mother Jones Tape. OBAMA CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN BEN LABOLT: "You heard on the tapes released this week that it's Mitt Romney who would walk away from the peace process." (MSNBC, 9/19/12)

But This Morning, Politico Reported That The Mother Jones Video Was Selectively Edited To Give A False Impression About Mitt Romney’s Views On The Middle East Peace Process. "But the clip initially provided by Mother Jones does not include that part of his remarks, and therefore was not reported by the aforementioned news outlets. Romney's complete remarks about the Mideast peace process were included in the complete video Mother Jones published Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after it released clips from the fundraiser. But the clip posted to the Mother Jones website, which was cited by the national media, cuts out the excerpt in which Romney says that 'American strength, American resolve' will cause the Palestinians to 'some day reach the point where they want peace more than we're trying to force peace on them.'" (Dylan Byers, "Technically, Romney Said Peace Was Possible," Politico, 9/19/12)

The Romney campaign was clearly implying the whole video was rubbish. But there's a slight problem. Politico's Dylan Byers, the source for the debunking charge, quickly noted that he had done no such thing. He wrote:

there is nothing in my report that "debunks" the video.

In his article, posted earlier in the day, Byers had noted how some folks were complaining that we had edited a long clip of Romney talking about the Middle East selectively. In that clip—watch it here—Romney trashed the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, said the Palestinians (whom he lumped into one mindset) did not want peace and only sought the destruction of Israel, that he would not actively pursue the peace process and would instead seek to "kick the ball down the field," and that he had paid no real attention when a former secretary of state had told him that peace might be possible in the Middle East.

That is a total diss of the peace process—and would represent a radical break with US policy, which has supported a two-state solution since the Clinton years.

Yet Romney went on to say—and this clip did not include this—that if the United States showed "resolve….the Palestinians will some day reach the point where they want peace more than we're trying to force peace on them." Thus, peace might be theoretically possible at some point in the distance.

This was not a case of selective editing. The point was to show what was newsworthy: Romney breaking with current policy and stating views that he has not stated publicly. (In an interview this summer, he said he supported a two-state solution.) Nevertheless, some Romney backers have cried foul and managed to turn this into a dispute they can use to raise questions about the secret Romney tape.

But don't take my word. Here's more from Byers:

More mysterious still, is why the Romney campaign wants to debunk a video containing remarks that the candidate doubled-down on in a follow-up press conference.

Slate's Dave Weigel has weighed in as well:

By calling the whole tape "debunked" and "selectively edited," the campaign's hewing closer to the Breitbart.com argument -- the real story is liberal media-Obama collusion. And the result is a sort of paradox, in which Romney stands by what he said in a video that you can't trust.

It was bizarre. After Byers and Weigel had debunked the Romney camp's debunking, Byers heard from a Romney aide who said that the campaign only takes issue with the clip regarding Romney's view on the Mideast, not the entire video.

In other words, the Romney campaign walked back the push-back. It's not challenging the "47 percent" material or anything else; only the Mideast remarks. But, as I've said a few thousand times on television these past few days, the wonderful thing about this story is that people can view for themselves. Watch Romney talking about the Mideast, and it's clear he has contempt for the peace process as it has been conceived for years; does not believe it can work; and would chart a radically different course. The few sentences not included in that clip—but which were included in the full transcript and complete tape we released—do not a debunking make. This maneuver smacks of desperation from a campaign hurt by the undeniable words of its candidate.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Sep 2012)

Alright, this thread is done until after the election.  I'm saving you guys from yourselves as this has been 72 pages of turds swirling in the drain.  Go to a U.S. political forum and call out the rednecks/socialists to your heart's content.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Nov 2012)

A link from Mr. Campbell.


[quote author=E.R. Campbell]
Hi Bruce

I think this video http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart-0?fsrc=rss is useful for the locked US Election thread. It is, pretty much, up to the minute and, I think, pretty close to as accurate as the media can be.

Regards

ERC
[/quote]


----------



## Infanteer (4 Nov 2012)

A member has asked for the following to be put up for those with some time on their hands:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?smid=tw-thecaucus

512 ways you can agonize about the coming of <insert political boogyman here>


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2012)

Lets see if Army.ca can pick the winner.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Nov 2012)

This is a tough one.  The polling suggests a dead heat, but is the polling correct?

On the theory that, since conservatives were under-polled in the last Canadian Federal election, lets see if the same is true in the US.

Romney, by a Recount and a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Nov 2012)

Obama by a thread.


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2012)

The incumbent has the edge.......



I hope not  :


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Romney, by a Recount and a Supreme Court decision.


 Only if Kevin Spacey is available for the sequel.


----------



## Spanky (4 Nov 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> The incumbent has the edge.......
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not  :



 :ditto:


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Nov 2012)

Obama will come out on top.  The Republicans have picked a slow horse yet again.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Nov 2012)

Obama, but the end result either way is that America itself will be the loser by having to choose between these two.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2012)

Please limit the comments so as to avoid getting locked. I am interested in the results compared to the vote in the US. Thanks


----------



## larry Strong (5 Nov 2012)

Romney to win election ... if Redskins Rule holds true according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/04/romney-to-win-election--if-redskin-rule-holds-true



> If history means anything, the Washington Redskins’ loss Sunday will have an impact on much more than the NFC East.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2012)

I picked Romney.  Many of the polls are over-sampling Democrats, but the early balloting is _suggesting_ that there are many more voting for Romney than Obama.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Nov 2012)

For the record I pick President Obama, by personal preference and by watching a number of polling sites like this one.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/05/all_over_but_the_vote_counting_116058.html

In the last few days the polls show Obama (Hurricane Sandy ?) gaining a slight edge.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Nov 2012)

I hope Obama wins now that I've seen CBC's lead story -- "Can black America withstand an Obama loss?" 
I'd hate to see 13% of the US population pack up and move back to Africa by next weekend.  
        :


(actually, I'm not getting too worked up either way; there's too many checks & balances.....between Constitutional and pork-barrelling debts to repay.....to keep either from getting too exreme)


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Nov 2012)

I frankly don't have enough information to make an informed guess. My preference is for Romney, if for no other reason than that Obama has failed to deliver on all sorts of fronts after being oversold as the saviour of America. Romney, I fear, lacks any firm position on just about anything, which might mean that he can broker deals with the two houses of Congress. The polls seem to be contradictory, but I am guessing Obama with a narrow edge - say 30 votes - in the Electoral College. This could push the US economy off the cliff and may well lead to disaster for the US military if the January 1st deadline arrives without a deal in Congress to scrap the automatic budget cuts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2012)

It's _Tweedle*dumb*_ vs _Tweedle*dumber*_; neither offers much to America or the world. It is _"events, dear boy, events"_* that will drive the US society and economy for the next four years, not politicians. The politicians will march (or flee or scramble, etc) in the directions the events dictate, not the other way around.







No vote from me as the outcome is inconsequential.


-----
* Probably not said by Harold Macmillan, but a useful quote anyway


----------



## observor 69 (5 Nov 2012)

Journeyman
Reply #12 on: Today at 08:17:19 »
(actually, I'm not getting too worked up either way; there's too many checks & balances.....between Constitutional and pork-barrelling debts to repay.....to keep either from getting too exreme)
[/quote]

Too extreme for me, kill Obamacare,an  increase to the defence budget which has not been requested by the military.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2012)

*DO NOT* start getting into the realm of the locked thread or this one will go down too.

Leave the comment to who you voted for and why. The OP has already requested this. There is no requirement for back and forth discussion.

The question is who did you pick as the winner. Leave it there.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Obama by a thread.


Close, but I'm with Jim on this one.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> On the theory that, since conservatives were under-polled in the last Canadian Federal election, lets see if the same is true in the US.


Interesting point.  So, relying on Wikipedia, the last 20 polls in the 2011 election had, on average, the Conservatives at 36%, Liberals at 21%, NDP at 31%, the bloc at 6%, Greens at 4 % and "others" at 2% (all averages are rounded).  The results were 40% Conservatives, 19% Liberals, 31% NDP, bloc at 6%, Greens at 4% and others at 1% (all rounded).  Though bloc and NDP were bang on, the "predictions" on the conservatives were off ~4%.

Oh well, in two days we can focus on important things, such as the up coming CFL playoffs


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2012)

The voting booth decision for Americans is heart vs head.

In 2008, hearts won.

In 2012, heads will win.

Calling it for Romney   . . .    300+ Electoral College votes.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Nov 2012)

I say Romney as well. I think Democrats have been over sampled, many undecided are wary of the media and have not voiced their true intentions, much of the minority vote that changed sides last time, may not go to Obama this time.

I also think that Americans, like Canadians are not going to succumb to the politics of fear. The demonization of the conservative voter may work against Mr Obama rather than for him.


----------



## Maxadia (5 Nov 2012)

I'm going to go out on a limb and go for a tie....Romney as president, and Biden as vice president.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2012)

Based on the all-important PeeWee Herman endorsement, I think Obama will win.

Of course, the Fred Willard endorsement is still not confirmed.


----------



## MusclesGlasses (5 Nov 2012)

Regardless of who wins, the following image still applies:


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and go for a tie....Romney as president, and Biden as vice president.



That would have to be a nightmare scenario. ;D
The pollsters for some reason are content to call it a tie right now. They cant be wrong.
Watch the exit polls and how they are reported. Take it with a grain of salt. What matters are the actual votes which should begin around 2000 hrs.
If you want to play with the election map here is a link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html


----------



## skyhigh10 (5 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> That would have to be a nightmare scenario. ;D



     I could not imagine Romney or Biden smiling on day one. Well maybe Biden, but that's about it.    :ditto:

I voted Obama. He is the incumbent and it appears he has made a decent push throughout the last two weeks. I think this election is going to have more than a few "firsts".


----------



## Maxadia (5 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> That would have to be a nightmare scenario. ;D



One that could easily become true:  

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-biden-administration-could-happen-223736689--abc-news-politics.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

Its more likely in a 3 party race than the current race.


----------



## DBA (5 Nov 2012)

Mitt.  

Obama over promised and under-delivered the past fours years which has really hurt the enthusiasm for his "brand".


----------



## JesseWZ (5 Nov 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interesting point.  So, relying on Wikipedia, the last 20 polls in the 2011 election had, on average, the Conservatives at 36%, Liberals at 21%, NDP at 31%, the bloc at 6%, Greens at 4 % and "others" at 2% (all averages are rounded).  The results were 40% Conservatives, 19% Liberals, 31% NDP, bloc at 6%, Greens at 4% and others at 1% (all rounded).  Though bloc and NDP were bang on, the "predictions" on the conservatives were off ~4%.
> 
> Oh well, in two days we can focus on important things, such as the up coming CFL playoffs



Over or under polling can itself skew the outcome as many undecided and uninformed (deliberately or otherwise) voters may look to the polls and vote for who is leading. That being said, I am going to throw in for Romney.


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2012)

Obama has the easiest route to 270 electoral votes, which is what really matters, not the popular vote.

Romney essentially has to run the table on all of the swing states to get to 270. 

My prediction is Obama gets 277 electoral votes.


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Romney to win election ... if Redskins Rule holds true according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/04/romney-to-win-election--if-redskin-rule-holds-true



The way the Redskins have been the past 10 years, it was a given that they would loose yesterday. Can't put too much into that one. Hell, all of Washington's pro sports teams seem to choke or be just plain crap over the past 10 years (see below to understand how painful that was to say) ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Nov 2012)

Hoping for Romney, but afraid that Obama will likely pull it off.  If that happens, expect lots of Republicans/Tea Potters immigrating to Canada.


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hoping for Romney, but afraid that Obama will likely pull it off.  If that happens, expect lots of Republicans/Tea Potters *immigrating self-deporting* to Canada.


 ;D

One final prediction, the final results won't come until late Wednesday or later into the week. The call might come in the wee hours of Wednesday, but the final numbers are going to drag on.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2012)

I will go out on a limb and predict a landslide for Romney 356 to 182. Obama takes the northeast,DC,Illinois,Iowa,California,Washington,Oregon,Nevada and New Mexico [14 states].


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Nov 2012)

Romney, as I too believe the Democrats have been over sampled. 

Disaster for USA and Canada if Obama re-elected. Except for stone masons/blasters that is. Mount Rushmore will get $100 + billion in stimulus for creating a new face.


----------



## WrenchBender (5 Nov 2012)

I can see it as a hung vote, Obama getting the popular vote but Romney getting the Electoral College. 

WrenchBender


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I will go out on a limb and predict a landslide for Romney 356 to 182. Obama takes the northeast,DC,Illinois,Iowa,California,Washington,Oregon,Nevada and New Mexico [14 states].



That's a hard one to figure out how that would happen. It would mean that Obama would have to loose 55 electoral votes from the Likely or leaning states, as well as all of the swing states.

Just don't start sawing on that limb. ;D

One good thing about tomorrow, it all comes to an end and I can go back to watching the regularly scheduled ED medication commercials. Yeah.  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (5 Nov 2012)

Time to be contrary. 

Canadians in general (for that matter the rest of the world except Pakistan - go figure) have been polled and generally support an Obama win by about a 2/3 majority.

This being a military forum however I expect there will be strong support for the Republicans.

Happened to be on a staff visit to Ft Bragg the night before the 1980 elections when Reagan won. We had a fairly large officers' call at the officers' mess when the commander of XVIII Corps toasted the election and stated. "Tomorrow we'll have a new president or else tomorrow you'll have a new commander of XVIII Corps." Not too ambivalent that man and quite reflective of military opinion in general. 

Personally my long standing leaning towards the Republicans has come to an end. Their policies have become to extreme for my taste. They don't even pretend to want to rule on behalf of all of the country any more. They want to rule only for their most extreme and richest supporters. Too bad. It used to be a good party.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2012)

The current POTUS - both Electoral & Popular vote.

Glad to have been on Ex the past two weeks ... and missed all the diatribe; your televisions must have been swamped with "polls" and red & blue Koolaid drinking pundits. (which I hate).


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2012)

"We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice."

Woody Allen


----------



## Grimey (6 Nov 2012)

Obama by a comfortable margin due to the EC votes.  He has done his darndest over the last 4 yrs to turn the US into a client state.  It's only a few weeks shy of Thanksgiving and turkeys (clients) don't vote for that holiday, nor Christmas.

I hope I'm wrong though for $16,000,000,000,000 reasons.


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (6 Nov 2012)

I picked Obama, as I think for Romney to win he would lower than usual national voter turnout rates. But it should be close in any event.


----------



## Dissident (6 Nov 2012)

Don't care.

To paraphrase something ERC wrote somewhere else: Whichever gets elected, the impact on Canadians will be negligeable.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Nov 2012)

The real winners will be everyone else.  Like that little girl crying on the video says, "I'm tired of hearing about Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney".  How I wish the US was like us and did this nauseating process in a matter of weeks instead of months.


----------



## Haletown (6 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> One good thing about tomorrow, it all comes to an end and I can go back to watching the regularly scheduled ED medication commercials. Yeah.  :nod:



Erections instead of elections.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Hoping for Romney, but afraid that Obama will likely pull it off.  If that happens, expect lots of Republicans/Tea Potters immigrating to Canada.


Wouldn't we be a bit too "socialist" for them?


----------



## TheHead (6 Nov 2012)

I hope Obama wins for the sole purpose that I need another four years of laughs.  I won't see the same sky is falling, hyperbolic nonsense with Romney  :nod:


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2012)

First results are in from Dixville Notch NH. 43 seconds after midnight. 5-5 tie.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2012)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I hope Obama wins for the sole purpose that I need another four years of laughs.  I won't see the same sky is falling, hyperbolic nonsense with Romney  :nod:



Wanna bet?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2012)

For those saying "What if it's a tie?", may I present the XKCD guide to an electoral draw: http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/

Classic line:



> Putting all this together: The probability that every battleground state is exactly tied is roughly equal to the probability that, when one of the Florida electors reaches into the hat to draw a name, he or she is struck by a falling cocaine bale, the hat is hurled away within the next few seconds by a tornado, and the elector is obliterated minutes later by a meteorite impact.
> 
> 
> If you’re in the US, don’t forget to vote—your vote could make or break a tie.
> ...


----------



## Maxadia (6 Nov 2012)

Interesting article:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/canada/better+Canada+Romney+hands+down/7501629/story.html


----------



## observor 69 (6 Nov 2012)

Okay if we are into numbers here's mine , Romney 225 Obama 313.
Should be interesting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2012)

Thanks to the _Ottawa Citizen_


----------



## medicineman (6 Nov 2012)

I figure whoever gets/wins/buys the most votes, will probably win...I only say probably because of that thingy in Florida a few years back 

MM


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2012)

Grimey said:
			
		

> Obama by a comfortable margin due to the EC votes.  He has done his darndest over the last 4 yrs to turn the US into a client state.  It's only a few weeks shy of Thanksgiving and turkeys (clients) don't vote for that holiday, nor Christmas.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong though for $16,000,000,000,000 reasons.



I find this interesting; I don't foresee any more of a "client state" than the US would be seeing right now had Bronco Bama allowed the auto manufacturing populace and companies to go bankrupt (exactly as the Republicans wanted to do) and therefore the follow on economy, business' and mom-n-pop shops all those people shop at too. It'd be taking a whole lot of money in fed dollars to support all those people (ie: just a shitload more new "clients") and their families right now.

Someone else said it best: Decide which is the lesser of the two poisons.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Nov 2012)

I would like to see Romney win. I _think_ Obama will win.

I will toss this out though - if Romney does win, I think it will be by a surprising margin...


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I would like to see Romney win. I _think_ Obama will win.
> 
> I will toss this out though - if Romney does win, I think it will be by a surprising margin...



ditto.....there might just be a surprise out there....


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Nov 2012)

Four years isn't long enough for the utopian dream to be shredded and the rosey glasses to fog up.  Obama will get back in.


----------



## GAP (6 Nov 2012)

Then ER's post about the financial cliff the US is on might just come true....


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Then ER's post about the financial cliff the US is on might just come true....


Now I wish I had some gold bullion....   :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Nov 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now I wish I had some gold bullion....   :nod:



I do and gold coins too including the er Maple Leaf. :nod:


----------



## Infanteer (6 Nov 2012)

I'm calling this for the President.  The only votes left in Florida are in Miami-Dade, which is a Democrat bastion.  The President will squeak out with Florida and take Ohio and the Presidency.

edited to add: I just used the Race to 270 counter and I predict 299 Electoral College votes for Obama to Romney's 239.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Nov 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm calling this for the President.  The only votes left in Florida are in Miami-Dade, which is a Democrat bastion.  The President will squeak out with Florida and take Ohio and the Presidency.
> 
> edited to add: I just used the Race to 270 counter and I predict 299 Electoral College votes for Obama to Romney's 239.




I can live with that.  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Nov 2012)

I think that the President will hold on. That being said, I also predict that the House will go solid Republican with the Senate split. Tea Party effect? Should make for an interesting 4 years.


----------



## JorgSlice (7 Nov 2012)

Obama has 275 electoral votes, thus secured himself Office for another term.

The Senate will be in the hands of the Democrats again, the House of Representatives is still being calculated but displays signs of s strong Republican majority in the House.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Nov 2012)

The choice seems to be pretty secure; polls might be hard to judge but the models for calling winners state-by-state are pretty reliable.  It looks like the Democratic Party is correct to pride itself on the precision of its GOTV efforts.  Anecdotal lawn sign counts and estimates of election day lineups turned out to be relatively worthless indicators of turnout.

This came up on one of the Twitter feeds.  Interesting, and bleak.  I guess at this point all (administration, congress) of the incumbents (both parties) of the past 4 years basically have to deal with their own failure to select and maintain a proper aim in 2009.  We (Canada) are still screwed by our degree of economic connectedness to the US.  I'm glad my house is almost paid for and I'm not on a fixed income, and that I'm not a US taxpayer.


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2012)

It's been a very interesting year and a half of campaigning from both sides.

Hopefully the Pols in Congress (both House and Senate, GOP and Dems alike) take the results as a sign from the electorate that they want a functional bipartisan legislative body working to get the country back on track.

It's either that, or we're all F'd.


----------



## JorgSlice (7 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> It's been a very interesting year and a half of campaigning from both sides.
> 
> Hopefully the Pols in Congress (both House and Senate, GOP and Dems alike) take the results as a sign from the electorate that they want a functional bipartisan legislative body working to get the country back on track.
> 
> It's either that, or we're all F'd.



Bipartisan? America!? :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2012)

Expect the worst, hope for the best.

We will now have to live with the consequences of this election, and it will be pretty ugly for us as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2012)

I predict that when the shine wears off this election, the economy goes further into the sewer and thousands of Americans lose everything they've been fighting to hang onto, the MSM will end up attacking Obama and laying total blame at his feet.

Of course they will never admit their collusion and twisting of the news to complete the subversion of the US electorate in the fiasco that was supposed to be a true and fair election.

The Electoral College is an antiquated and disposable commodity that needs to be done away with.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2012)

I didn't see any female voters with their forefinger dyed purple; _obviously_ all those votes are disallowed.


Hey, it was good enough for the US-imposed supervised "democracy" in Iraq.   :dunno:



Edit.....because the election-monitoring beer effected my spelling ability.    :facepalm:


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I predict that when the shine wears off this election, the economy goes further into the sewer and thousands of Americans lose everything they've been fighting to hang onto, the MSM will end up attacking Obama and laying total blame at his feet.
> 
> Of course they will never admit their collusion and twisting of the news to complete the subversion of the US electorate in the fiasco that was supposed to be a true and fair election.
> 
> The Electoral College is an antiquated and disposable commodity that needs to be done away with.



They'll probably lay it all on Gee Dubya and say Obama inherited an irretrievable economy, did all he could but couldn't drag it back from the event horizon.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Nov 2012)

Well I just cant predict elections. Glad my money is in gold. :camo:


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2012)

Now that it's over I can comment further.  I'm not really keen on either, but, Romney would be my last choice of the two.  I don't think he has what it takes and the devil you know is better than the one you don't.  It's a shame the Republicans cannot seem to get it together and pick a candidate that's worthwhile.  I did like McCain, but his VP was a poor choice.  

For those of you here who shudder at the thought of Billary ascending to the throne in 4 years time, take heart.  If Bronco turns out to be the nightmare you fear he will be, there's no way in hell any Democrat will come after this term.  The same fate McCain suffered after 8 years of the Shrub.


----------



## JorgSlice (7 Nov 2012)

As seen on Twitter:



> Today: Voter turn out rates in Canada at historically high levels!
> Problem: Not our election!


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

I watched a really good movie last night: To Live. I turned off the subtitles because Gong Li's voice is so lovely and clear that I can understand whole sentences, sometimes. I went to bed fairly early, a happy but - in matters regarding US politics - uninformed man.






Gong Li's ... uhh ... _voice_

All I needed to know was emblazoned on this morning's paper: Obama is still President; the GOP still controls the House of Representatives and the Democrats still control the Senate. _Status quo ante_.

What is going to change? *Who is going to change?* Barack Obama? John Boehner? Harry Reid? All three of them need to make some _political_ changes if they want to avoid pushing America over the edge of the Fiscal Cliff.

 :waiting:


----------



## GAP (7 Nov 2012)

Well that means that by June everybody will start lining up for the 2016 election......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Since the comments are now coming, I'll just remind everyone that abortion murders your baby.  You know, that individual that is a result of vaginal intercourse.  Unique DNA and all that.  But since we in Canada are satisfied with a 400 or so year old definition of "human being", ignoring science to keep intact an agenda, I'll just keep all other opinion to myself.  Don't want to be burnt at the stake.   No pics this time.
> 
> I'm also glad I live here, for what it's worth.




There has to be some sort of Godwin type term for any discussion that decends into the realm of abortion :


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Nov 2012)

>Who is going to change?

Either Obama is the moderate, reach-across-the-aisle kind of guy that his supporters claim he is (which we never really saw because the 2008 Congress didn't require bipartisanship), or he is not - and this divided Congress will leave no room for pretending otherwise.

I am puzzled by the "women's issue" of contraception.  I get that Obamacare demands it be covered by insurers, and I get that many Republicans and religious groups object to that constraint.  I never did see anyone claim to support a ban on contraception.  And I guess I've been pretty lax in checking what my provincial health care plan covers - I didn't know contraception is covered anywhere in Canada.  Being misinformed is a terrible thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well that means that by June everybody will start lining up for the 2016 election......




Diane Francis (_National Post_) is already suggesting it's 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 vs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 in 2016.
                                                                                      Jeb Bush                                                       Hillary Clinton


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

If the _outcome_ still interests you, look at the US markets ~ in less than one hour the DJIA has lost nearly 2% of its value.


----------



## GAP (7 Nov 2012)

Well, that market change didn't take long.....

As to 2016 I think  Paul Ryan is a valid contender.....the Bush's I think have run out their family tree .....Clinton is a dead end....they will come up with some non entity.....


----------



## Remius (7 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Diane Francis (_National Post_) is already suggesting it's
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmn.  i would have thought that Governor Christie would be the man.  Although he has burned some bridges.


----------



## Dissident (7 Nov 2012)

The Clinton picture looks like she is enjoying a cigar.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> The Clinton picture looks like she is enjoying a cigar.




 :rofl: Thanks, I needed a really good laugh! Milpoints inbound.


----------



## PanaEng (7 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the _outcome_ still interests you, look at the US markets ~ in less than one hour the DJIA has lost nearly 2% of its value.


yeah, but Ruger (RGR) is up 7% and S&W SWHC 10% ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> yeah, but Ruger (RGR) is up 7% and S&W SWHC 10% ...



 :rofl:

I guess this is US reaction to last night's election results: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-markets-tumble-after-us-election/article5045683/


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2012)




----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2012)




----------



## Fiver (7 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I guess this is US reaction to last night's election results:
> 
> ...



Market trading was positive until around 7 a.m. EDT. Then Mario Draghi announced that the economy is stagnating in Germany, where the data is worse than predicted. That's when FTSE and STX 50 crashed.

Hell, intrade.com had Obama winning at 80%, his win isn't a surprise to investors. While a dip in high dividend stocks might be able to be blamed on the election results, which would cause the market to go down some, to try to blame the velocity in the market on the election is a joke, it's primarily Europe.

Pointing to short-term fluctuations as a result of this election sounds eerily like something that would come out of the Fox News scare machine. Correlation isn't causation, yada yada yada, etc.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the _outcome_ still interests you, look at the US markets ~ in less than one hour the DJIA has lost nearly 2% of its value.



Yes, we can look at the outcome.

Obama elected in 2008:  Dow Jones at: 9139.27

Obama re-elected in 2012:  Dow Jones at: 12932.73

After the "slump" the DJIA is still up over 41% in the past 4 years.


Bush elected in 2000:  Dow Jones at: 10712.91

Bush retires in 2008: Dow Jones at: 9625.28

Loss of over 10%.


So, if you're an investor and part of the 1% (or even the 53%), which president better served your economic interests?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

Fiver said:
			
		

> Market trading was positive until around 7 a.m. EDT. Then Mario Draghi announced that the economy is stagnating in Germany, where the data is worse than predicted. That's when FTSE and STX 50 crashed.
> 
> Hell, intrade.com had Obama winning at 80%, his win isn't a surprise to investors. While a dip in high dividend stocks might be able to be blamed on the election results, which would cause the market to go down some, to try to blame the velocity in the market on the election is a joke, it's primarily Europe.
> 
> Pointing to short-term fluctuations as a result of this election sounds eerily like something that would come out of the Fox News scare machine. Correlation isn't causation, yada yada yada, etc.




Investor were not surprised, or, at least, they should not have been, but there seems, to me, to be broad agreement that both the bad news from Germany and the fear of the impact of the Fiscal Cliff on, especially, bank stocks caused the dip and the Fiscal Cliff fears are directly related to the "bad news" of election night: the division in American politics persists.

See Reuters, for example:



> HONG KONG, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Hong Kong shares could start lower on Thursday, tracking steep losses on Wall Street as investors shift their focus to the looming "fiscal cliff" that confronts the U.S. economy and to Europe's economic problems.
> 
> The Dow industrials lost more than 300 points in a sell-off on Wednesday that drove all major U.S. stock indexes down more than 2 percent in the wake of the presidential election.



Now some reports say that there are ways to avoid the Fiscal Cliff, and I suspect, maybe just hope, that is the case, but the US Congress, still facing this President, scares me because I am not convinced that members will do what's needed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Nov 2012)

4 more years of trench warfare.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Nov 2012)

I know it's the electoral college votes that count most, and wins in Calif, Ohio, and Pennsylvania really put Obama over the top, but the popular vote numbers are interesting. Obama managed a bare majority with 50.4% of the vote. Obama might yet take Florida as well, but the margin there is 0.6%. Not the ringing endorsement that some might suggest his victory illustrates. In fact you see a 2.5% slip over the last go in 2008. It will be interesting to see how he manages the next 4 years, and how this plays out in 2016.


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I know it's the electoral college votes that count most, and wins in Calif, Ohio, and Pennsylvania really put Obama over the top, but the popular vote numbers are interesting. Obama managed a bare majority with 50.4% of the vote. Obama might yet take Florida as well, but the margin there is 0.6%. Not the ringing endorsement that some might suggest his victory illustrates. In fact you see a 2.5% slip over the last go in 2008. It will be interesting to see how he manages the next 4 years, and how this plays out in 2016.



You have to put it into perspective. By all accounts the GOP should have had a cakewalk because of the state of the economy and the perceived failure of the Obama Administration. Instead, Obama lost only two states compared to the 2008 map. Because of that fact alone, this win is (to paraphrase Joe Biden) a bigger f'n deal than 2008.

The GOP failed to understand the demographics of 2012 America, with the reduction of the white vote from 87% in 2008 to 72% in 2012, along with an increase in the Hispanic vote from 2% to 10%. The overall electorate is getting darker, younger, more secular, and more moderate. Until the GOP addresses the change in demographics, which is only going to continue to move in a direction favorable to the Dems, they will have difficult times ahead.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2012)

The irony is that many immigrants are culturally and fiscally conservative.  That a party which claims to embrace that same conservatism is unable to reach out to growing communities with shared interests should lead to some fundamental questions.

I'm not holding my breath, though; it was the same story in Canada until the reborn Conservatives made deliberate, concentrated efforts to appeal to immigrant communities.


----------



## FJAG (7 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Until the GOP addresses the change in demographics, which is only going to continue to move in a direction favorable to the Dems, they will have difficult times ahead.



Couldn't agree more.

The GOP is presently advocating on behalf of only a part of American society (albeit a very large but shrinking number). Until and unless they become more inclusive and develop a more secular viewpoint they will remain the voice of special interest groups and not that of the nation as a whole.

Good luck sorting that out.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Nov 2012)

> Pointing to short-term fluctuations as a result of this election sounds eerily like something that would come out of the Fox News scare machine.



Pardon me, I'm one of the unwashed masses who must defer to your analytic prowess. Are you saying that the activity in the markets today was unrelated to the election results??


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Nov 2012)

> The GOP is presently advocating on behalf of only a part of American society



Yes - about 48-49% apparently. I believe one of the main reasons President Obama won this campaign (there were many) was that he was more successful strategically than Romney. He won every battleground state; heck, nearly every battleground county. His campaign was extremely effective in identifying areas crucial for a victory, and then winning in those areas.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2012)

Yup - he won because he carried Arlington County Virginia, the suburbs of Denver (Adams county, IIRC) and Cincinnati and Miami-Dade County in Florida.  Take away these four counties and those states likely go the other way, and that is 69 electoral college votes that go and make the other guy the President.

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of President Obama's victory, only that muskrat is right on the razor thin margin of that victory.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Nov 2012)

I've spoken to a lot of friends in the US over the past few days, most voted Democrat, and most did that because of his response to the monster storm.  Obama got out there and made promises, Romney did not.  That storm was a rainmaker for Obama too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The irony is that many immigrants are culturally and fiscally conservative.  That a party which claims to embrace that same conservatism is unable to reach out to growing communities with shared interests should lead to some fundamental questions.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, though; it was the same story in Canada until the reborn Conservatives made deliberate, concentrated efforts to appeal to immigrant communities.




That's it: but you must, first, understand what _conservatism_ is. Many American _conservatives_ have _morphed_ into an intellectually impossible form of _big government_ and _moral_ conservatism which is self defeating.

In my, limited, experience, many East and South Asians are very _socially conservative_, *but* they are also very pro-abortion, in fact they are very supportive of all individual rights, including e.g. gay marriage even when they disapprove of homosexuality, _per se_, and they are, generally, highly suspicious (even afraid) of the "religious right." 

Some of the _micro-policy_ initiatives that Prime Minister Harper, at the behest of Jason Kenney, has taken here in Canada are aimed at offering e.g. Asian Canadians a _conservative_ policy "rose" that does not have many of the "thorns" which Asian-Canadians, especially, find so troubling.

During the Republican primaries we saw Governor Romney twist himself totally out of the shape his own record suggested he held so that he could defeat e.g. Rick Santorum. In the primary process, I suspect, he ended up defining himself in ways that cost him the votes of real _social_ and _fiscal_ conservatives who are not part of the religious right.

The kind of _conservatism_ that the GOP has embraced alienates too many groups, even as it appeals, mainly, to some _fundamentalist_ Christians and, somewhat ironically, to their kissing cousins, the _*Wahabite*_ Muslims.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The irony is that many immigrants are culturally and fiscally conservative.  That a party which claims to embrace that same conservatism is unable to reach out to growing communities with shared interests should lead to some fundamental questions.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, though; it was the same story in Canada until the reborn Conservatives made deliberate, concentrated efforts to appeal to immigrant communities.



This is exactly the case, and look how long it took for the education and outreach to penetrate. I would suggest that it was at least a decade of very low key, almost "stealth" work by the CPC to gain that demographic, especially against the constant drumbeat of "hidden agenda" by the legacy media and the ability of the Liberals to direct a shower of "Free Stuff"  to their supporters.

Since the Democrats turned the shower of Free Stuff into a river, and the legacy media is even more partisan and rabid, Republican efforts to court various demographics need to be much more sustained and effective. I might also argue that they also have to be different; things like flirting with immigration amnesties is just Free Stuff under a different name. Why would anyone vote for Democrat lite and get a little Free Stuff when the real Democrats openly offer everything from phones, foodstamps and "free" healthcare as well as an amnesty?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

While "Republican efforts to court various demographics" may, indeed, be "sustained," I would argue that they are woefully ineffective, even inept. 

The US census is *not* a SECRET document, anyone can befriend and _study_ immigrants and their attitudes. That the GOP remains in thrall of the religious right, the Rush Limbaugh buffoon faction and Grover Norquist's insanity tells me that it is doomed to shrivel and die.

*Real* Republicans must regain the respect and trust of the small business _class_ who want a chance to succeed on their own merits and by their own efforts. The Democrats have cast that large 'demographic' adrift but the GOP has not professed values that appeal to it. If you can get that _small business_ class onside then much of the middle class will follow. The Real Republicans are: *moderate*, honest, *inclusive*, responsible, *fiscally prudent* and sensible. Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are none of those things and they need to be disowned and denounced before the GOP can be Grand or even a politically useful Party again.

The GOP held the HoR (and the Democrats held the Senate) because of a combination of gerrymandering and the power of incumbency being so very strong in the USA, not because they offered anything much that most Americans wanted. But: 58 Million Americans voted against Barack Obama - there is 'room' to retake America and turn it back to a more moderate course.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Real* Republicans must regain the respect and trust of the small business _class_ who want a chance to succeed on their own merits and by their own efforts.



That sounds astonishingly like the nation of "liberal" shopkeepers that Napoleon derided.  Anything that affronted that chap and his white horse can't be all bad.

Napoleon's nation of shopkeepers weren't all Brits either. Nor were all Brits shopkeeper.  Many Brits longed for men on white horses.

Fortunately, in my view, they were overpowered, if not outnumbered by native shopkeepers together with refugee shopkeepers from Flanders, the Baltic, the Rhineland, the Rhone, the Alps, France south of the Loire, Normandy, Brittany and various points in Spain.   (In fact the only places not represented  (probably) were the Ile de France and Madrid).

The same people that populated the US and were described by David Hackett Fisher as the "Seeds of Albion"


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

I suspect that America may have to endure, in its own more complex manner, what we did from 1993 - the electoral _destruction_ of the PC Party and the rise of Reform - until 2003 - the _union_ of the Canadian Alliance and PC Party into the Conservative Party of Canada.

My guess is that the *Real Republicans* will abandon the GOP and for a new party with socially moderate, fiscally conservative, resoundingly secular and inclusive values. The current GOP will wither and die on the vine because angry, white, poorly educated, Christian fundamentalist men are simply too small a base upon which to build or sustain a national party. The new party - let's call it the Reform Party, just for fun - will, eventually merge with the few Republicans that are left and, in the process, will drive out the "religious right" and other assorted fruitcakes.

I think this may take them the same full decade it took us and it, too, will require two leaders who are fed up with the Liberals' Democrats stranglehold on power.


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2012)

And then the Democrats will discover the same thing, because they have a similar problem.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2012)

Some interesting infographics lifted from the Althouse blog; there is some movement towards the GOP among various groups, although in terms of the electoral calculus there wasn't enough. This suggests some of the groups that should be targeted, and (to me anyway) what sort of messaging that needs to be done among the various groups.

ERC, Kirkhill etc. are quite right, and I have alluded to this as well; the messaging needs to be _different_ as well as sustained and delivered via non traditional means (letting the Legacy Media deliver distorted, misleading or outright lies like "War on Women" while constantly playing a "happy tunes" narrative for the Democrat party certainly has an effect, which one commentator estimated to be adding  5% (?, can't find reference right now) to the vote as far back as 2000).

http://www.althouse.blogspot.ca/2012/11/look-how-many-groups-moved-toward-gop.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/national-breakdown/?hpid=z3


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

The country, broadly, actually shifted, slightly, towards the Republicans according to a couple of county-by-county total vote (President + Senator (where applicable) + Governor (where applicable) + Representative) summaries I have seen. But the popular vote eluded the GOP in several key, mainly urban, areas. Several identifiable groups voted by large majorities for Obama and, to a lesser degree, for the whole Democratic ticket: *women*, _young voters_, *Jews*, _Hispanics_ and *Blacks*. There is, as Thucydides says, a _message_ problem but I do not believe there is a *major* media problem ~ I believe the GOP message is wrong no matter what media are used to propagate it. It is wrong because it alienates *women*, _young voters_, *Jews*, _Hispanics_ and *Blacks*. Change the message and the voters the GOP needs will follow. Change the message and the GOP may lose some of the angry, while, ill educated, Christian and male _demographic_ but ... who cares? Where else are they going?


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yup - he won because he carried Arlington County Virginia,



Arlington County alone would not have been enough to flip Virginia.

The thing you need to know about Virginia is that it is really a purple state, but only on overall outcomes. There are distinct areas of the state that fall one way or the other. 

Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads / Norfolk and Richmond are the three major urban areas, with large growing immigrant populations. Add to that the transient nature of the a portion of Northern Virginia's population of government and gov't related workforce. This is where the Dems had their votes come from.

The remainder of Virginia is mostly rural and conservative. GOP country.

There has been a long history of division between these areas at the state level when it comes to tax base vs funding and services. Northern VA and Hampton Roads both complain that they do not get back in government funds what they pay out in taxes.

Also, the State Democrats tend to be politically moderate or even right of center, so GOP tends to be more to the right on the scale.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

One interesting sidebar to Tuesday's results:

Maryland voted to uphold the same sex marriage amendment the legislature passed earlier this year, 52% to 48%.

In every county in the state except Montgomery County, the results were opposite, with the No side winning. Montgomery County voted to uphold. And the margin of victory was large enough to negate the results of all other the counties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> One interesting sidebar to Tuesday's results:
> 
> Maryland voted to uphold the same sex marriage amendment the legislature passed earlier this year, 52% to 48%.
> 
> In every county in the state except Montgomery County, the results were opposite, with the No side winning. Montgomery County voted to uphold. And the margin of victory was large enough to negate the results of all other the counties.




And that's exactly what I meant a few minutes ago when I said, "the popular vote eluded the GOP in several key, mainly urban, areas," and earlier when I said that the US Census is not a SECRET document. Political professionals know where people are and they know what they think - but the party faithful, who vote in primaries, impose wholly unrealistic positions upon candidates ... and I agree with GAP when he says that the Democrats will face problems soon, in 2016 when their candidates have to appeal to a party base that is too far to the left, just as Romney was saddled with positions he took to appeal to a party base that is too far fright of the mainstream.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> just as Romney was saddled with positions he took to appeal to a party base that is too *far fright * of the mainstream.



Perhaps the best typing slip-up of the day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

:rofl: Yep, I'll leave it there ... because some of those positions frightened the _jebeezus_ out of voters.


----------



## FJAG (8 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Political professionals know where people are and they know what they think - but the party faithful, who vote in primaries, impose wholly unrealistic positions upon candidates ...



And therein lies the problem for the GOP. 

Many of the positions their candidates take are not based upon winning the general electorate to their side at the election but instead at winning their party's primary. 

The down side of democracy is that the middle of the road hard working folks who are the electorate aren't drawn into the day-to-day nuts and bolts of party politics. That is left to a few faithful who do the daily work and who are too easily hijacked by a handful of extremists who have an axe to grind and who are prepared to put in the work at the grass roots level to advance their cause.

Once entrenched, they're hard to get out of there.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Not sure where I heard this anecdote, but the interviewer / interviewee were discussing the Obama Campaign machine, and how they had been working up to this for the last two years. They brought up the point that ERC makes, that they used the 2010 Census data and subsequent reports on the electoral demographics. They spent $250,000,000 putting together and implementing their "get out the vote" machine.

Then the interviewee told a story about a neighborhood campaign captain who he met during the Dem's convention. She had been running the local office for at least 2 years. She was from that neighborhood, knew who voted and who didn't, what it would take to get those who didn't to go out and vote, and how the vote broke down through out the area she worked on. She then pointed out the fact that the Romney campaign had only just opened up their office and were still putting their people together. She said that there was no way that the Romney Campaign was going to win in her area because they just didn't have a grasp on the voters in her neighborhood like the Obama Campaign did.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Alec Baldwin made an interesting Tweet that says a lot about the GOP's candidates.

It's a bad sign when you ask if the "rape guy" won, and someone says "which one?"


----------



## Jed (8 Nov 2012)

[Finger problem inserting a quote from Cupper) 

So, does money, spent in the right place, buy an election? (refering to the $250,000,000 spent by the Dems in strategic areas)


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Another interesting take:

Obama had 9.4 million votes less than he did in 2008.

But Romney was 2 million less than McCain's 2008 numbers.

And Romney's pollster said that they really didn't expect the Obama 2008 electorate to be the same, and basically ran a campaign similar to the 2004 demographics.


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> [Finger problem inserting a quote from Cupper)
> 
> So, does money, spent in the right place, buy an election? (refering to the $250,000,000 spent by the Dems in strategic areas)



Actually, the $250 Million was on campaign resources and infrastructure only, and didn't include ads, mailers, and so forth. Just hiring consultants, buying and mining data sources, building up networks of people and so forth, renting office space and equipment.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, does money, spent in the right place, buy an election? (refering to the $250,000,000 spent by the Dems in strategic areas)



Reminds me of an interesting quote.  

"I have just received the following wire from my generous daddy: 'Dear Jack -- Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary -- I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.'" (Address by Senator Kennedy before the Gridion Club, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1958.)
 http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations.aspx


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2012)

I have been trying to put my finger on the root of the American problem ERC.

I think I have found him.  Reese Witherspoon's GGGGGDad apparently.  Worse than that he is from Paisley.

John Witherspoon

He ran away from both the "men on white horses" and the "shopkeepers" and followed the Puritans west.  There he did two things:  Coined the term "Nation on a Hill" and established a training school for politicians and bureaucrats.  Princeton.

Curiously both the Democrats and Republicans can claim him as a forebear.  Republicans for his "godliness".  Democrats for his "morality".  They used to be one and the same thing......


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Nov 2012)

The US doesn't have 10 years for the GOP to reform.  When the PC self-destructed, Canada's expense:income ratio was 1.3 and falling - interest rates (cost of servicing debt) were falling, revenues were climbing faster than expenses, the operating balance was a surplus, and the provinces could at least tolerate some downloading even if they screamed about it.  Debt as % of GDP never got above 70%.

The US expense:income ratio is somewhere around 1.4 or 1.5, cost of servicing debt has nowhere to go but up, the economy (thus revenue) is recovering only sluggishly, the provisions of PPACA which require money to be paid out will start to kick in, the operating balance is an emphatic deficit, and most states are too hard pressed to pick up any slack.  Debt as a % of GDP is over 100%.

I guess the moderate, fiscally prudent Democrats, who have set their desired spending bar at around 24% of GDP (Ryan's proposed target would have been at the high end of the historical range of revenue, somewhere near 20%) will overcome whatever it is that has kept revenues in the 17-20% band despite income tax rates all over the map, and fix everything in a jiffy.

California and Illinois have been "blue" locks for a long time, where the Democratic Party and their supporters can pretty much implement any of their ideas they choose.  They're really smart, reality-based, data-driven people, so those states are models of fiscal prudence and flexibility.  I assume that's where they plan to take the federal government, since that's what their capability is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The irony is that many immigrants are culturally and fiscally conservative.  That a party which claims to embrace that same conservatism is unable to reach out to growing communities with shared interests should lead to some fundamental questions.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath, though; it was the same story in Canada until the reborn Conservatives made deliberate, concentrated efforts to appeal to immigrant communities.




According to _Politico_ The GOP have got this exactly backasswards. In 1992 George W Bush got 55% of the Asian vote, in 2012 Romeny got only 27%. Dumb!


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Three charts that clarify what ERC and I have both been pointing out with respect to knowing the data better than the other guy can put you over the top.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-better-or-worse/?hpid=z3


----------



## cupper (8 Nov 2012)

Something else that the GOP did that helped the Democrats and the ground game: The state level attack on labour unions.

In states like Wisconsin where recalls were held last year over anti union measures, or Ohio where unions orchestrated a partition drive forcing the GOP Governor to pull anti union measures, they did two things. 

First, they galvanized the electorate. It gave them a reason to turn out at the polls. 

Second, it provided a frameworks and necessary infrastructure to build on for the presidential campaign.
For example, even though Walker defeated the recall, it left in place an organization which the Obama Campaign was able to to utilize.

If the GOP had left the issue alone, would things have gone better?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2012)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/supergrid/run/

Nice 10 minute summary of the 2012 election campaign for those who didn't care to wade through the 80 or so pages of this thread.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2012)

Timing is everything. Imagine the different thread we would have if these pieces of information (along with a lot of other stuff) was being covered by the media or information released before the election?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-07/treasury-issues-fresh-batch-10-year-bonds



> *Treasury Issues Fresh Batch Of 10 Year Bonds*
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/07/2012 13:18 -0500
> 
> The first day of the "next 4 years" is starting in a very auspicious fashion. First, the market crashes. Then, a major blue chip company, Boeing, just announced it would cut 30% of management jobs from 2010 levels. And finally, the US Treasury just added $24 billion in debt, or enough to fund Greece for over one year, sending the total debt load (the US is now at 103% debt/GDP) ever closer to the debt ceiling breaching $16.4 trillion. But don't worry: over the next 4 years, the US government will add another $6-8 trillion in debt, so those who didn't get their allocation in this auction will have more than enough opportunity. As for this one, the yield was 1.68%, the lowest since August (but, but, what happened to the great rotation out of bonds and into stocks?), the Bid to Cover was 2.59, the lowest since last November and only higher compared to August' 2.49. And finally, the take down breakdown was uneventful: 46.2% for Dealers (to be promptly flipped back to the Fed - keep track of CUSIP 912828TY6), 39.7% for Indirects, or below the 12 TTM average of 41.28%, and Directs got 14.1%, also below the average, and lower than last month's 22.9%. As noted: uneventful. As also noted: there will be many, many more such auctions in the future, so those who wish to convert one paper into another will have ample opportunity to do so.



and



> A reader who works at Yale emails:
> I found it interesting that this email came out today from Yale benefits:
> 
> Dear Colleagues:
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2012)

Fiver said:
			
		

> Market trading was positive until around 7 a.m. EDT. Then Mario Draghi announced that the economy is stagnating in Germany, where the data is worse than predicted. That's when FTSE and STX 50 crashed.
> 
> Hell, intrade.com had Obama winning at 80%, his win isn't a surprise to investors. While a dip in high dividend stocks might be able to be blamed on the election results, which would cause the market to go down some, to try to blame the velocity in the market on the election is a joke, it's primarily Europe.
> 
> Pointing to short-term fluctuations as a result of this election sounds eerily like something that would come out of the Fox News scare machine. Correlation isn't causation, yada yada yada, etc.




Both Mark Carney and Larry Summers said, at a Canada 2020/TD seminar in Ottawa, that:

1. The Fiscal Cliff has the very real potential to drive the US back into recession; and

2. The _uncertainty_ caused by the reelection of the _status quo ante_ is being felt in the markets, right now.

Maybe correlation isn't causation but, in this case, it - political uncertainty - is real and investors are hedging their bets, assuming that Obama, Boehner and Reid cannot make the requisite deals. The DJIA is headed down again, for a third day in a row; Germany isn't the only problem.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2012)

We never recovered from the 2008 economic meltdown. IMO we are experiencing a double dip recession heading for a depression.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2012)

*Technically* the USA is in a long, albeit slow, recovery. IF the worst Fiscal Cliff fears come to pass then you will have a double dip recession.

I doubt (guess, to be honest) that a depression is in the cards, unless both China and Europe have more problems that most economists currently predict.


Edit: grammar - double negative (which I, foolishly, edited in)  :-[


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2012)




----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2012)

Former White House speechwriter (and Canadian) David Frum is first out of the starting blocks with an _Election 2012 Analysis Book_:






He must have had this 99% written before the polls closed.


----------



## PanaEng (9 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former White House speechwriter (and Canadian) David Frum is first out of the starting blocks with an _Election 2012 Analysis Book_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He must have started writing it way back when he incurred the wrath of the Tea Party - I think he is surprised that the popular vote was this close.


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2012)

Clinton to Step Down Probably 'Days' After Inauguration
Nov 8, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Article Link

Hillary Clinton still intends to step down as secretary of state. That will take place likely "days" after President Barack Obama's second inauguration in January.

"The Secretary has been honored to serve as President Obama's Secretary of State, and has loved every minute of leading this Department and being part of the State family," a Clintons spokesman says in an email. "But yes, you can confirm yet again that she's been clear about her intention to leave after the first term."

When asked for clarification on what date Clinton would stepdown, the spokesman, Philippe Reines, says, "She has said that she wants to ensure continuity, and realizes the confirmation of her successor might take a period of days beyond that."

Reines, a long time Clinton loyalist, did not immediately respond to a question concerning what role he might play in (a possible) Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.
end


----------



## Journeyman (9 Nov 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Reines, a long time Clinton loyalist, did not immediately respond  to a question concerning what role he might play in (a possible) Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.


So did he respond eventually? If so, what was his response?


----------



## TheHead (9 Nov 2012)

Probably one of the craziest responses to the re-election of President Obama.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html



> However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.
> 
> I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.
> 
> ...



Edited for typo.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Nov 2012)

Heads have started to roll.


----------



## Jed (9 Nov 2012)

'The South shall rise again' Except it ain't the Civil War and it ain't just the south.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2012)

>Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend...

The more I read further down, the more difficult I found it to imagine how he came by friends in the first place.


----------



## JorgSlice (9 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend...
> 
> The more I read further down, the more difficult I found it to imagine how he came by friends in the first place.



Yup...

Also sounds like someone who can't keep gainful employment either... or they do, but screw their employer by "...telling clients to take their business elsewhere..."

I understand if you work for one company, but know that another provides better services... you're supposed to suck it up and lie because it's a paycheque. Geez Louise... kids these days...


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Nov 2012)

Sounds more to me like someone trying to mock the more extreme reactions to the election results, but I'm probably waaay off.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sounds more to me like someone trying to mock the more extreme reactions to the election results, but I'm probably waaay off.



I thought so too. But we are both waaay off.  just go look at the forum/blog he runs or rather used to run.

Heck, Donald Trump sounds like a big joke too.  But he isn't joking.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2012)

Mea culpa, and may I say, as a lower case "c" conservative;  Holy flying loony moonbats, Batman.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

As a response to the Culture Wars, the post is probably not intended as a joke, but it is certainly far too crude a method to be more than marginally successful.

OTOH he does have the essence of this correct; since Progressives are in the business of offering and taking "Free Stuff" the best way to fight them is to simply not offer to pay the bill for "Free Stuff" anymore. People talk of this as "going Galt" after the lead character of the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged", and rearranging your affairs to minimize your tax exposure, reducing your paid/billable hours or refusing new projects and extra work that might place you in a higher tax bracket are all forms of "going Galt". Not buying newspapers or watching Legacy media hurts their bottom line, and we know that the Legacy media has been bleeding for years. Personal boycots of business that support Democrats or Progressives don't have to be loudly announced, and lots of personal relationships will probably cool or end over political differences, although from experience the trend is to reduce and eventually stop associating with the loud mouth "progressive".

The results can actually be quite impressive. Reducing your expenditures by $1-200/month puts a bit of savings in your pocket, deprives the government of tax revenues and makes it harder for Progressives to offer or provide "Free Stuff", especially if the process is expanded over thousands or milions of people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Former White House speechwriter (and Canadian) David Frum is first out of the starting blocks with an _Election 2012 Analysis Book_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ and featuring extracts from his _insta-book_, are David Frums thoughts on how the GOP managed to seize defeat from the jaws of victory:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/10/david-frum-republican-victory-in-six-easy-steps/


> Republican victory in six easy steps
> 
> David Frum
> 
> ...




The _ethnic vote_ numbers are pretty astounding ~ memo to GOP: there are not enough, angry, white, poorly educated, Christian men in America.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2012)

What are the grounds for assuming it is the GOP's failure to reach out instead of the Democrat's successful smear campaign?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

I don't think the Democrats' _smearing_ was in any way more widespread or "nastier" than the GOP's - it may have been better focused but that's the fault of the GOP, in my view.

My perception is that, in _smearing_, "money talks" and since the GOP had at least as much as the Democrats they should have had at least equal results. That they did not suggests, to me anyway, that they were/are politically "tone deaf."


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

The _Associated Press_, via the _Twitterverse_ says: "AP RACE CALL: Obama wins Florida, topping Romney in final electoral vote tally 332 to 206.


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What are the grounds for assuming it is the GOP's failure to reach out instead of the Democrat's successful smear campaign?



There was nothing in the Democrat's smear campaign that wasn't originally fodder in the GOP primaries. Hell, Gingrich created a whole docudrama about Romney's time at Bain.

As for the grounds for the assumption, looking at the breakdown of the voter turnout and exit polls will give you the answer. As well as the comments from the more rational elements of the GOP itself.

Oh, and the fact that the polls in the run-up pretty much matched the election night results.


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Associated Press_, via the _Twitterverse_ says: "AP RACE CALL: Obama wins Florida, topping Romney in final electoral vote tally 332 to 206.



I'm Shocked! I would have thought Romney in a landslide.  :facepalm:


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2012)

I suspect that Romney being a Mormon and a moderate may have been the reason he lost. The former would have been reason enough for southern Baptists.As for being a moderate against Obama I wouldnt think that would have been much of a problem. Onward to 2016. I do hope that the GOP learns a lesson by closing the primaries to Republicans only.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2012)

>looking at the breakdown of the voter turnout and exit polls will give you the answer

Yes, I know the real answer: the Democratic Party learned to use the EC more efficiently than the GOP (actually, I don't think the GOP has really learned to approach the EC as a pure data crunching exercise yet).  The campaign did its OR and found the weak points; the unions delivered the GOTV at those points.  Result, victory: but not by margins beyond the reach of application of the same techniques by the other side.

The only question is whether this year's GOTV is payback for the GM/Chrysler handout, or a marker which will be called in at some point in the next 4 years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

The relatively close popular vote did not translate into a close Electoral College race. The relatively few states Romney won he won by large margins, but Obama won a lot of states by small margins. Efficiency.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The only question is whether this year's GOTV is payback for the GM/Chrysler handout, or a marker which will be called in at some point in the next 4 years.



Both


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

Elections have consequences. One down, 99 rounds to go.....

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/new-yorkers-still-in-the-dark-as-obama-hits-the-links/



> *New Yorkers Still in the Dark as Obama Hits the Links*
> Posted by Jammie on Nov 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm
> 
> A good chunk of Long Island is still in the dark after 12 days now and nobody seems to care. It’s not like the president needs to show up for a photo op since these poor bastards overwhelmingly vote for him anyway.
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >looking at the breakdown of the voter turnout and exit polls will give you the answer
> 
> Yes, I know the real answer: the Democratic Party learned to use the EC more efficiently than the GOP (actually, I don't think the GOP has really learned to approach the EC as a pure data crunching exercise yet).  The campaign did its OR and found the weak points; the unions delivered the GOTV at those points.  Result, victory: but not by margins beyond the reach of application of the same techniques by the other side.
> 
> The only question is whether this year's GOTV is payback for the GM/Chrysler handout, or a marker which will be called in at some point in the next 4 years.



I think realistically you can point to a lot of different reasons that came together.

For instance some are blaming Christie's "endorsement" of Obama after Sandy, and Obama's performance during that period as the reason he pulled it out. But it doesn't explain why people in Colorado supported him.

In the end, I think that they will find that Obama had a better run campaign than Romney. Many within the organization admit there were problems across the board. The batshit crazy primary season where all and sundry went after Romney for Bain, flip flopping, not being conservative enough. Having to run to the right of Perry on immigration and Santorum on abortion and other social issues, but not pivoting back to the center until the debates. Letting the Obama camp define Romney right from the beginning. Not challenging hard on the narrative being put out, both in the primaries and the general election. Changing tact when it came to direct media access to the candidate, first letting him talk freely, then only closely scripted interviews, then finally realizing that Mitt has to be Mitt. The party not having infrastructure in place prior to the start of the campaign. Assuming that the electorate model was the same as 2004, not 2008.

One thing I've learned in my engineering career is that failures rarely occur due to a single cause, but more often than not are a result of several problems that lead to the failure. And had any of them been addressed, would have either prevented or minimized the effects of the failure.


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Imagine the howls if Bush played golf during the post-Katrina cleanup.



Not sure that the Katrina comparison is a good one to be using. Kinda blows the whole point the blogger was were trying to make.


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2012)

Money well spent?

*How Much Did Independent Groups Spend Per Vote?*

http://projects.propublica.org/pactrack/candidates/votes


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Not sure that the Katrina comparison is a good one to be using. Kinda blows the whole point the blogger was were trying to make.



It is exactly the point the blogger is making. Katrina is recent enough that you should be able to Google news "reports" from that time even without using the wayback machine; the amount of venom directed at the President and the administration was amazing to behold, especially considering that, at the time, FEMA was only charged to respond in 72 hours of an event, there was pelenty of warning for the Mayor and Governor to have prepared, and the total lack of local responce (in one infamous instance, the Mayor of New Orleans tried to pass the blame for the poor evacuation on the lack of busses, when a photograph was circulated of a parking lot of school busses abandoned in a lot near the Superdome...).

Oh, and BTW, Bresident Bush had actually called the Mayor and Governor and told them to get prepared and suggested forward deployment (not in the mandate at the time) but was rebuffed.

So President George W Bush does everything possible to prepare and help but gets dumped upon, while President Obama goes off and plays golf without comment....Yes, the blogger's point is very clear indeed.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2012)

It's over folks; let it go.


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2012)

Self Deportation. It's the Right thing to do. >


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Nov 2012)

Much easier to deport oneself to Canada for part of the year at least.


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Much easier to deport oneself to Canada for part of the year at least.



 :rofl:

Milpoints Inbound.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Nov 2012)

Thanks Cupper !! >


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2012)

Possibly the best summary of the election and how it ended the way it did:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-12/guest-post-why-president-obama-was-reelected



> *Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected*
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/12/2012 10:52 -0500
> 
> Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Nov 2012)

An interesting video of  Bill Whittle  giving a speech on why the Republicans lost the election:

http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2012)

I guess we'll be discussing\ parsing\ argueing this thread until 2015 when the 2016 Election thread takes hold.

I'm really, really sorry if I can't get excited\ pissed off\ twisting my nuts in a vice over what road some other country decides to head down\ drive off\ whatever.

Yeah, yeah, I know they're a big trading partner and all that, but if we put as much thought and time into our OWN elections, instead of worrying about the US and their decisions, maybe a few more of OUR people would be more interested\ educated\ caring about our own elections and outcomes.

It's done. Get over it. Move on. Nothing has changed, nor is it likely to, barring a death.

That's why we moved it to Radio Chatter.


----------



## cupper (21 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess we'll be discussing\ parsing\ argueing this thread until 2015 when the 2016 Election thread takes hold.
> 
> I'm really, really sorry if I can't get excited\ pissed off\ twisting my nuts in a vice over what road some other country decides to head down\ drive off\ whatever.
> 
> ...



Aren't you worried about the huge socialist worker's paradise that your neighbor to the south is becoming?  >

We all know the last place Canadian Snowbirds want to spend their winter vacations is a hotbed of socialism.

Oh. Right. :nevermind:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Aren't you worried about the huge socialist worker's paradise that your neighbor to the south is becoming?  >
> 
> We all know the last place Canadian Snowbirds want to spend their winter vacations is a hotbed of socialism.
> 
> Oh. Right. :nevermind:



Yup. We can give the thread over to the two or three expats and the other two or three colonials here that want to spend all their time whinging, whining and wringing their hands over something that is a done deal that they have no control over. I'll check in once in awhile to see how this austere group has changed the face of US politics.

Oh. Right.  :violin:


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Aren't you worried about the huge socialist worker's paradise that your neighbor to the south is becoming?  >
> 
> We all know the last place Canadian Snowbirds want to spend their winter vacations is a hotbed of socialism.
> 
> Oh. Right. :nevermind:



We'll always have Cuba.


----------



## cupper (24 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's why we moved it to Radio Chatter.



One minor problem that I just noticed with moving various topics into the Radio Chatter folder is that all of those previous posts no longer count towards Member Status or other items.

I noticed that I dropped from a Veteran to a Sr. Member as a result.

Not that it matters all that much, just wanted to point that out in case anyone else found the same issue.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2012)

XKCD has a remarkable infographic on the evolution of US politics:

http://xkcd.com/1127/large/


----------

