View Full Version : The 2012 Presidential Race

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

August 11th, 2011, 09:10 PM
I'll give the first word in this thread to Felonius Munk.


Who will win? Call it now!

August 11th, 2011, 09:16 PM
He should consider decaf.

August 11th, 2011, 09:17 PM
Based on that ^ no one should have any outstanding debts.

What growing economy works on that Felonious philosophy?

August 11th, 2011, 09:18 PM
I think the GOP shot themselves in the foot over on the debt ceiling negotiation. As the Speaker of the House said, they got 98% of what they wanted. Well they own it and it sucks.

I have been pretty critical of Obama, but if he does not mess with Social Security means testing, I believe he'll win.

August 11th, 2011, 09:23 PM
Felonious philosophy?

aka Felonomics.

August 13th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Yes, he has a way with words.

Who will win the nomination? Mittens or Bachmann?

Who will be O's running mate this time?

Who would you like to see run? Keyes looks interesting - even Joe the Plumber endorsed him somewhere on TY you can see it . Keyes wont fit the taste of many of the dainty WNY people, but here he is - watch the Chuck Norris of debating - "Alan Keyes: no teleprompter required":



August 13th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Run Michele Run! The Tea Party candidates will eat each other alive over the next 6 months, trying to out-extreme each other (or, from their POV, stand evermore firm with their convictions). None of them will get the GOP nomination. Look for a split with an independent party run. Or maybe two independent parties. The centralists & left-siders had better not fall into that game, but it would be just like the Dems to let victory slip from their hands by trying to swing the pendulum too quickly.

August 14th, 2011, 12:06 AM
The Republican ticket will be Perry / Bachman.

August 14th, 2011, 01:10 AM
that would cause our founders to spin in their graves, and put some of us still alive, into ours.

August 14th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Perry is pretty far right, and though he's well traveled (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/05/whats_rick_perrys_foreign_policy), his foreign experience is basically limited to Texas trade missions and border issues. Going by tradition, as nominee he'd pick a center-conservative veep with foreign policy chops. That's not Bachmann. Maybe Huntsman. Or Condi Rice

August 14th, 2011, 11:29 AM
Maybe President Perry can hold weekly prayer meetings asking for Christ's forgiveness as the means to promote economic turnaround. Non-Christians need not participate. What an a$$h0le.

that would cause our founders to spin in their graves, and put some of us still alive, into ours.

Well put.

August 14th, 2011, 03:30 PM
The Daily Show reports on the Ames Iowa Straw Poll:

Corn Polled (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ames-entertainment-preview)

Candidate Tent Coverage (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---candidate-tent-coverage)

August 14th, 2011, 07:49 PM
Let's see... Bachman, Palin, Paul.... Ya gotta thing it looks good for the Dems. Or maybe I'll just cut my throat.

August 15th, 2011, 12:17 AM
Perry ... he'd pick a center-conservative veep with foreign policy chops ... Or Condi Rice.

She's got chops, but she also has that one big nasty F*Up back in August 2001 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM):

August 15th, 2011, 03:45 AM
He should consider decaf.

I think he needs to go home and take his Prosac. Looking like Osama Binladen. Hah!!

I'm STIL voting for Obama again - win or lose!

A lot of people thought that Massacusetts Governor Deval Patrick wouldn't win a 2nd term in office, but he DID.

August 15th, 2011, 05:50 AM
Hopefully all the infighting in the reps will mean that it could be clear-sailing for Obama. Although it is always more interesting when there is a viable opponent who can bring about some interesting debates, although an easy opponent and dull debates would suite me as long as Obama gets back in. I think he needs another 4 years to really leave behind a legacy.

August 15th, 2011, 12:42 PM
Bachman would help him in the upper midwest, which he would need to take. And, of course, she's a woman, which might help Perry with that demographic.

Once elected, the VP doesn't do much anyway. Obama had no foreign policy experience, no executive experience (and very little other experience for that matter) before he was elected. Perry has run the third largest state in the country for ten years.

Perry is pretty far right, and though he's well traveled (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/05/whats_rick_perrys_foreign_policy), his foreign experience is basically limited to Texas trade missions and border issues. Going by tradition, as nominee he'd pick a center-conservative veep with foreign policy chops. That's not Bachmann. Maybe Huntsman. Or Condi Rice

August 15th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Don't count on it.

Besides, the way elections usually work is that the votes go into the booth, open their wallet, an count how much money they have. If they like the number, they vote for the incumbant. If they don't, they vote for the challenger. I have a feeling in 15 months from now, they're not going to like the number.

And Obama has been looking very inempt latlely. Even the left is complaining about him.

Hopefully all the infighting in the reps will mean that it could be clear-sailing for Obama. Although it is always more interesting when there is a viable opponent who can bring about some interesting debates, although an easy opponent and dull debates would suite me as long as Obama gets back in. I think he needs another 4 years to really leave behind a legacy.

August 15th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Bachmann as a running mate makes even less sense than Bachmann at the top of a ticket.

Don't be fooled by a straw poll in Iowa; she isn't nationally electable, and would be a negative on a ticket.

August 15th, 2011, 01:44 PM
... Looking very inempt latlely.


August 15th, 2011, 03:23 PM
Bachmann as a running mate makes even less sense than Bachmann at the top of a ticket.

Don't be fooled by a straw poll in Iowa; she isn't nationally electable, and would be a negative on a ticket.

Which is a good thing...

August 15th, 2011, 03:33 PM
.And Obama has been looking very inempt latlely. Even the left is complaining about him.
Most of what Obama has going for him is that he is running against a very weak field.

August 15th, 2011, 03:38 PM
I don't consider a three term governor of the third largest state a weak candidate.

August 15th, 2011, 03:41 PM
Depends on the 3 term governer and the state. He is weak. I don't see that prayer session crap flying in a national forum.

August 15th, 2011, 03:48 PM
Governor Goodhair

August 15th, 2011, 04:17 PM
Perry does not have a wide enough polical base. Even fiscal conservatives are likely to be turned off by his stand on social issues. He'll get the Rush Limbaugh wing of the party, but he can't get close enough to the middle to appeal to moderates and blue dog dems. The only two candidates with a socially moderate enough agenda to attract broad based appeal are Romney and Huntsman, both of whom are seriously flawed for other reasons.

August 16th, 2011, 09:32 AM
Obama had no foreign policy experience

That's why he chose Biden, to add foreign policy experience to the ticket.
Reagan-Bush too.

You only choose a new face as veep if you've been around Washington forever, like Dole or Bush I or Mondale. So Perry-Bachmann won't happen. (Especially because Bachmann makes GOP insiders nervous.)

August 16th, 2011, 02:29 PM
Perry / Huntsman? Romney / Huntsman? Can't think of anyone else in the field with foreign policy chops.

Bachman makes all but a fevered few nervous.

August 16th, 2011, 04:16 PM
Perry: "Secession", "Treason" blah blah blah

Mainstreamers will quickly tire of his BS.

August 16th, 2011, 07:37 PM
^ I was about to post the article from the the Atlantic Wire wherein Perry accuses Bernake of being a traitor, but your commentary beat me to it. You know you are over the edge when Karl Rove thinks you're some kind of nut job. So as far as the country knows this idiot has a stronger affinity for Texas than hye has for the US, and thinks the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is a traitor. Yeah, he'll get elected.

I'll stick with my original post on this matter. The biggest advantage Obama has in 2012 is a weak GOP field.

August 17th, 2011, 09:07 AM

I always thought GWB was a loonie too, and look what he got.

The key here is just what Obama said about him. He is a n00b and needs to tone it down a bit. What got him elected in Texas will not get him OUT of Texas. I liked Obamas comment. He did not insult him, just said something that would be really difficult to take personally and something that most pundits from both sides agree with.

What is sad is that even THAT comment looked like something he (Perry) was restraining himself on. He looked like he was about to start talking about "hog tying" or some other euphamisim and only a bit of pause made him decide that that would not win him any nods of approval outside of his local audience....

The scary thing is like I said it before. He is VERY similar to GWB in his basic background but, as far as I know, he did NOT go skipping out of his military obligations with a little help from his friends/family. If he tones it down a bit, he may be a serious "popular" contender.

August 17th, 2011, 03:02 PM
At this point, watch the money. The one who raises the most will likely win the nomination. It's a long time before anyone really gets to vote, so it's the money that's voting now.

August 17th, 2011, 04:23 PM
Just like Ross Perot?

August 17th, 2011, 07:40 PM
Perot didn't need to raise it. He just wrote a check.

August 17th, 2011, 07:53 PM
I agree the money will drive the nomination process. Right now Romney has the edge, but Perry has the Koch brothers in his pocket.

August 17th, 2011, 11:40 PM

or maybe it is the Koch bros who have Perry in their pocket

August 18th, 2011, 12:52 PM
This election season should be even more revolting than the last race against Geezer and Gidget.

August 18th, 2011, 02:44 PM
You betcha!

August 18th, 2011, 03:24 PM
I don't know, it might be kind of amusing in a macabre kind of way.

At least ideologically you will likely have two clear choices. I don't ever remember the GOP leaning this hard to the right fiscally. I honestly get enraged when I hear some Teaparty wingnut espouse her/his views on budget policy. I literally have to leave the room when it is on TV; my wife thinks I am insane.

Obama at least talks the talk on domestic policy ; healthcare, revising tax rates for the upper tier and corporations, salvaging entitlements, etc.. He is not so good at getting it done however. He also leads me leave the room with my hands balled into fists.

Foreign policy is a joke.

August 20th, 2011, 08:24 PM
...the money will drive the nomination process.

Doesn't it always?

August 20th, 2011, 10:45 PM
Who drinks tea at a party anyway?!

August 21st, 2011, 11:41 AM
I can't help it .... When I look at this guy I think 'snake oil salesman'


August 20, 2011

Perry Mines Texas System to Raise Cash


Two years ago, John McHale, an entrepreneur from Austin, Tex., who has given millions of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes, did something very unusual for him: he wrote a $50,000 check to a Republican candidate, Rick Perry, then seeking a third full term as governor of Texas. In September 2010, he did it again, catapulting himself into the top ranks of Mr. Perry’s donors.

Mr. McHale, a Perry spokesman said after the initial donation, “understands Governor Perry’s leadership has made Texas a good place to do business.”

Including, it turned out, for Mr. McHale’s business interests and partners. In May 2010 an economic development fund administered by the governor’s office handed $3 million to G-Con, a pharmaceutical start-up that Mr. McHale helped get off the ground. At least two other executives with connections to the firm had also given Mr. Perry tens of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Perry leapt into the Republican presidential primary this month preceded by his reputation as a thoroughbred fund-raiser. But a review of Mr. Perry’s years in office reveals that one of his most potent fund-raising tools is the very government he heads.

Over three terms in office, Mr. Perry’s administration has doled out grants, tax breaks, contracts and appointments to hundreds of his most generous supporters and their businesses. And they have helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history, donations that have periodically raised eyebrows but, thanks to loose campaign finance laws and a business-friendly political culture dominated in recent years by Republicans, have only fueled Mr. Perry’s ascent.

“Texas politics does have this amazing pay-to-play culture,” said Harold Cook, a Democratic political consultant.

Mark Miner, a spokesman for Mr. Perry, said there was no connection between Mr. McHale’s contributions and the grant to G-Con. He said that the purpose of the state money was to create jobs and that it was appropriate for Mr. Perry to appoint people who support his vision and policies to state oversight posts.

“These issues have been brought up in previous elections to no avail,” Mr. Miner said.

Mr. Perry is not the first governor to have taken contributions from contractors or appointees to state commissions and boards, which oversee many of the agencies that in other states are controlled directly by the governor.

But because he has been in office more than a decade, he has had greater opportunity than any of his predecessors to stock the government with loyalists — he has appointed roughly 4,000 people to state posts — while enacting policies that have benefited allies and contributors.

And Mr. Perry has been much more aggressive than any past governor in soliciting money from them. According to a study last year by Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog organization, Mr. Perry has raised at least $17 million from more than 900 appointees or their spouses, roughly one dollar out of every five that he has raised as governor.

Among the state boards that have generated the most campaign contributions for Mr. Perry, the study found, were the State Parks and Wildlife Commission and the board of regents of Texas A&M, Mr. Perry’s alma mater. Those appointees have donated more than $4 million to his campaigns for governor.

“I know that at least some of the people who were initially approached to be regents have been later turned down because they didn’t pass what I would call a loyalty test,” said Jon L. Hagler, a prominent A&M alumnus and a major donor to the university.

Mr. Perry has also drawn scrutiny for two of his signature economic development efforts, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The enterprise fund, which is intended to be a deal-closing tool for the state as it competes for jobs, has dispensed $435 million in grants to businesses since 2003. The technology fund, which has doled out nearly $200 million to companies since 2005, has a similar job creation mandate.

More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the enterprise fund in the most recent fiscal year, or their chief executives, made contributions to either Mr. Perry’s campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008, when Mr. Perry became its chairman, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

The award to G-Con is just one example of state money paying dividends for Perry benefactors. The company is working with the Texas A&M university system on a pharmaceutical manufacturing effort toward influenza vaccines.

Among G-Con’s officers, according to records filed with the Texas secretary of state, is David M. Shanahan, who also has a significant ownership stake in the company. He is also the founder and president of Gradalis, a biotech firm based in Dallas that received a separate $1.75 million grant from the state’s technology fund in February 2009.

Campaign finance records show that Mr. Shanahan contributed $10,000 to the governor in November 2009. The following month, G-Con filed its application for an enterprise fund grant, said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman in the governor’s office. (Mr. Shanahan also donated $5,000 in 2007.)

State records from a network of firms associated with G-Con also list Mr. McHale, the longtime Democratic donor, as an officer.

Patricia Haigwood, a spokeswoman for G-Con, said Friday that Mr. McHale, who did not return messages asking for comment, was one of the original board members of G-Con. But she said he left the company in late April 2010 and had not made an investment in G-Con.

Gradalis, however, controls 10 percent of G-Con, corporate records show. And Mr. McHale and James R. Leininger, a San Antonio businessman who has given more than $230,000 to Mr. Perry, have minority interests in Gradalis, Ms. Haigwood said.

Gradalis’s technology fund grant came under scrutiny last year when The Dallas Morning News revealed that Mr. McHale and Mr. Leininger, both major Perry donors, had significant financial interests in the company.

Ms. Nashed said that grants from both funds must be approved by the speaker of the Texas House and the lieutenant governor and that all recipients go through rigorous reviews.

Mr. Perry has also drawn criticism for his appointees to the board of the Teacher Retirement System, a $110 billion pension fund that is among the nation’s largest. In recent years he has appointed at least four top donors or fund-raisers to the board. Mr. Perry’s trustees leaned on the fund to invest more money with hedge funds and private equity firms, as many public pension funds have in recent years. But in some cases, the appointees appear to have pushed for firms whose investors, officers, or partners were Perry donors.

In 2009 an investment manager at the fund, Michael Green, wrote to a board trustee saying that the fund’s chief investment officer had pressed him and other employees to set aside their objections to such investments, including allocations to two firms whose partners and former partners have donated more than $1 million to Mr. Perry’s campaigns.

When Mr. Green complained about the pressure, a superior dismissed his concerns. Mr. Green’s boss, he wrote to the trustee, told him: “This is the way business is done.” An internal investigation concluded that no rules had been broken.

Philip Mullins, a trustee, said, “I think the concerns that were raised were based on a feeling that the chairman and some other people on the board were trying to set up a fund-raising campaign for the governor of Texas.”

Another instance of political donations to Mr. Perry seeming to dovetail with his policy decisions came in 2005, when the TXU Corporation, a utility based in Dallas, sought permits to build coal-fired power plants. That October, Mr. Perry issued an executive order for a review panel to fast-track the application.

In the months that followed, current and retired TXU executives, as well as the company’s political action committee, sent Mr. Perry more than $100,000 in donations, including one check dated the same day as Mr. Perry’s order. Mr. Perry’s office said at the time that the order was unrelated to the contributions. A state judge later blocked the order, ruling that Mr. Perry had overstepped his authority.

In 2003, after a rash of mold-related lawsuits against home construction companies, Mr. Perry championed the creation of a state board, the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The new commission was a priority of Mr. Perry’s most generous contributor: Bob Perry, a homebuilder who has contributed more than $2 million to the governor over his career. (The two men are not related.)

The legislation creating the board also sharply limited the rights of homeowners to sue contractors for faulty construction, shunting most disputes to the commission. After its passage, Bob Perry and his wife sent two $50,000 checks to the governor’s campaign. Three weeks later, the governor appointed an executive of Perry Homes, Bob Perry’s company, to the commission, which was abolished in 2009.

In 2009, as Mr. Perry was running for re-election, José Cuevas Jr., a restaurateur and the governor’s appointee as chairman of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, used a personal e-mail account to solicit donations for Mr. Perry from the owners of dozens of restaurants and bars overseen by the board.

In an interview last week, Mr. Cuevas said he saw nothing wrong with asking the owners, many of them business contacts, for donations. It was important, he said, for Mr. Perry’s appointees to support his broader mission of smaller government.

”When you personally know someone,” Mr. Cuevas said, “and know their abilities and vision, you’re willing to raise as much money as hard as you can for that person.”

If Phones Ring, Obama Is Here, With Cell Power
Read More »

August 21st, 2011, 05:21 PM
Perry talks about less government, but he wants a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

Governor Goodhair is also Governor Schmuck.

August 21st, 2011, 06:19 PM
He is also on record of saying that Texas' anti-sodomy, anti same-sex laws are "appropriate".

August 21st, 2011, 09:28 PM
And on the other side of the tea cozy is Michele Bachmann, who apparently makes up everything, from American history to her own life story ...

Leap of Faith

The making of a Republican front-runner.

The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza)

August 27th, 2011, 08:34 PM
"the herd instinct" , David Mamet
A brief interview with one of Obamas' most brilliant critics: well worth the 5 min talk.


August 27th, 2011, 08:57 PM
Mamet used to be a great playwright.

August 28th, 2011, 12:36 AM
Bachmann as a running mate makes even less sense than Bachmann at the top of a ticket.

Don't be fooled by a straw poll in Iowa; she isn't nationally electable, and would be a negative on a ticket.

Yes. The challenge for the GOP right now is -- do they nominate someone who is a favorite of the base and/or the tea party, or do they nominate someone who can win.

* Bachman = unelectable (and won't get the nomination)
* Palin = Ditto
* Romney = could win the whole enchilada, but might not get the nomination
* Paul, Newt, Cain, Santorum (see first bullet)
* Huntsman (zzzzzzzz - no one cares)

Without anyone else getting in who would actually have a chance (i.e. Christie, who won't run), it's between Romney and Perry. Perry is getting noticed right now, but Romney has been quietly courting the movers and shakers, and raising money. He may not be the GOP's ideal candidate, but he appears to have learned a lot from 2008, and has more support than people think. Flaws, yes, but so does Perry, and I am doubtful his "governor gun slinger, christian preacher" shtick will play nationally. The media seems to think that all GOPers are a bunch of fundamentalist loons, but whoever gets the nomination needs to be able to appeal outside the South, and also in states like Florida, where the electorate is much more broad based than SC and Alabama, etc. As always, its way too early to tell, but the media is going to try to figure it out now anyway.

August 28th, 2011, 04:30 PM
^ Good summary level assessment.

August 28th, 2011, 05:54 PM
"the herd instinct" , David Mamet
A brief interview with one of Obamas' most brilliant critics: well worth the 5 min talk.


The video


The reasoning behind his reasoning.


:cool: "J-C ethic"? Is there really such a thing in liberal philosophy, as he now espouses it? It's all about his religion and his "people". Just "another" hyphenated-American.

BTW, Perry is looking good, Ron Paul too.

August 29th, 2011, 10:41 AM
The best is that he accepts Federal Farm subsidies. What a slime.


August 28, 2011
As a States’ Rights Stalwart, Perry Draws Doubts
AUSTIN, Tex. — As Gov. Rick Perry of Texas begins his presidential campaign, he is working hard to position himself as the leading Republican champion of states’ rights, using his high-profile battles with Washington and his book on the dangers of federal power to build an ideological and constitutional rationale for his fierce anti-Obama message.

From his lawsuits challenging federal health care and environmental programs to his suggestions that Texans were so angry with Washington that they might consider secession, Mr. Perry has repeatedly invoked the 10th Amendment — reserving to the states the powers not explicitly given to the national government.

Mr. Perry uses the issue of states’ rights to give his candidacy an overarching theme, tap into the frustrations that have fueled the Tea Party movement and highlight the substance behind his swaggering style.

Though the governor has a claim to acting on these principles, he has come to publicly embrace states’ rights as a defining issue only in the past few years, a period when the 10th Amendment has been a rallying cry for many Tea Party supporters, libertarians and others who make up his party’s conservative base. And he has been inconsistent in applying those beliefs, drawing criticism from some states’ rights advocates and raising questions even among fellow Republicans about whether his stance is as much campaign positioning as a philosophical commitment.

In one of his more well-publicized shifts, Mr. Perry proclaimed that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide, but backtracked in recent weeks and now says he supports a federal amendment banning gay marriage. He has also signaled support for various federal actions to restrict abortion rather than leaving the issue to states. And he used $17 billion in federal stimulus money to balance the state’s last two budgets.

Despite his vocal opposition to what he has called “the unprecedented and massive federal overreach” of President Obama’s health care overhaul, Mr. Perry accepted a $1 million federal grant last October for planning to carry out one of its key provisions. (Other Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida, have refused to use the grants.)

Although his 2010 book, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington,” describes his outrage that federal bureaucrats distributed more than $245 billion in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, the governor received some of that money. Mr. Perry, a former West Texas cotton farmer, received at least $83,000 in federal farm subsidies between 1987 and 1998, during the time he was in elected office, according to his tax returns.

At the Republican Leadership Conference in June, Mr. Perry said that while government plays an important role in helping a city recover from a disaster, “the real recovery” stems from hard-working individuals. Unfortunately, he added, Mr. Obama believed government was the answer to every need, a sign of the “arrogance and audacity” of the White House.

Three weeks earlier, in a letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Perry struck a different tone as wildfires ravaged Texas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency had approved grants to reimburse some of the local and state costs of fighting the fires, but Mr. Perry was seeking the additional federal aid that comes from a presidential disaster declaration. “Your favorable consideration of this appeal would be greatly appreciated,” the governor wrote to the president, who ultimately granted Mr. Perry’s request.

Mr. Perry’s aides and supporters defend the governor’s record, praising him for taking bold stands to strengthen state autonomy and fight federal overregulation. In 2009, Mr. Perry rejected $556 million in federal stimulus dollars for the state’s unemployment insurance program, saying that the money came with too many strings attached that would require Texas to broaden its rules on who is eligible to receive benefits. Days before he announced his presidential candidacy, Mr. Perry formally requested that the federal government reimburse Texas $350 million — the estimated cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants in county jails and state prisons in 2009 and 2010.

When asked whether the governor saw any of these examples as inconsistent with his states’ rights stance, Mr. Perry’s spokesman, Mark Miner, said absolutely not. If anything, he said, Texas — a so-called donor state that pays more in federal taxes than it receives — has done more than its part, stepping in when the federal government has shirked its responsibilities.

“The governor is a strong advocate of the 10th Amendment, of giving more power to states to make decisions on these issues,” Mr. Miner said. “Whether it’s transportation or border security, which are federal issues, the State of Texas has had to step up to the plate where the federal government has failed at its responsibilities.”

Mr. Perry began embracing states’ rights as a major part of his political identity after Mr. Obama was elected president. It was a time when issues like government bailouts and the federal debt made the concept resonate among conservatives nationwide and helped fuel the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Bill Ratliff, a Republican who served alongside Mr. Perry as lieutenant governor from late 2000 to early 2003, said that states’ rights were not a priority for Mr. Perry in those years.

“He probably always had a level of skepticism about federal intervention and federal programs, but then when the Tea Party movement began, he sensed that this was going to be the place where he could participate,” said Mr. Ratliff, 75, now a lobbyist for public education. “I think he’s the best I’ve ever seen at picking up on a trend, a movement, and getting out in front of it very early.”

Critics say that there are inconsistencies between Mr. Perry’s message and his record and that this has eroded his support among some of those in Texas who share the same limited-government beliefs, including libertarians, moderate Republicans and Tea Party activists. “What he says in the book and what he does are not the same,” said Dave Nalle, national chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of libertarian Republicans whose Texas chapter has never endorsed Mr. Perry for governor. “He’s a good salesman, no question about it. But he’s selling something that’s mostly a fiction, I think.”

But even as some conservatives say he does not go far enough in adhering to a states’ rights philosophy, Democrats are already using his stated positions to portray him as an extremist who would gut popular government functions like Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. Perry has described the defense of the 10th Amendment as the battle for the soul of America. In his book, he called Social Security a failure that was “set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme” and described Congress as “arguably one of the most incompetent regimes with one of the worst track records of mismanagement in the history of mankind.” In two statements in 2009, he suggested that frustrated Texans might consider secession.

“We’ve got a great union,” Mr. Perry said at a Tea Party rally in Austin in April 2009. “There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.”

In his book, he sets out a view that the founders intended a federal system that allowed “people of like mind” in the states to make their own decisions about how to live, while the national government’s role was properly focused on national security. “From marriage to prayer, from zoning laws to tax policy, from our school systems to health care, and everything in between,” he wrote, “it is essential to our liberty that we be allowed to live as we see fit through the democratic process at the local and state level.”

The history of Mr. Perry’s anti-Washington beliefs is complicated by the fact that over much of his time in office during the last decade he had little interest in publicly challenging his predecessor as governor, President George W. Bush, alongside whom Mr. Perry served as lieutenant governor. Mr. Bush oversaw a substantial increase in the size and scope of the federal government, both in post-9/11 security programs and in social programs like the creation of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.

Though in his book he criticizes Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and suggests it is unconstitutional, Mr. Perry accepted financing for the education program as governor. This fiscal year, Texas received $2.03 billion.

Emily Ramshaw writes for The Texas Tribune, which produces a twice-weekly local section in the Texas editions of The New York Times.

August 29th, 2011, 12:58 PM
I find it hysterical that Mamet goes on Fox News to talk about how biased the NYT is. Really? Fox News? That bastion of balance?

August 29th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Money talks.......

August 29th, 2011, 02:26 PM
Starting with Oleanna (http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9E0CE1DF1E3CF935A15753C1A96495826 0) nearly 20 years ago Mamet stepped away from the strong character-driven dramas of his past and took a dive into the right fork of the political river.

He's continued on that same course with his recent Broadway outing: Race (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/12/david-mamets-race-on-broadway-what-did-the-critics-think.html).

Philosophically he's somewhat untethered, if not simplistic.

Seems he might opt for Mama Grizzly (http://www.slate.com/id/2296730) over the Smiling Submissive Wife:

So who would he prefer as president? He replies that he is "not current" with the Republican contenders (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c561130a-910c-11e0-acfd-00144feab49a.html) until I mention Sarah Palin. "I am crazy about her," he answers immediately. "Would she make a good candidate for president? I don't know but she seems to have succeeded at everything she put her hand to."

Mamet compares Palin to a late friend in Cabot, Vt., where he owns a "little cabin in the woods ... I like to hunt. I like to fish. Cross-country ski. It's in the middle of absolute nowhere. A dirt-track road, a 200-year-old post-and-beam house. Gorgeous." His friend, he continues, was "a hardworking guy, a man of honor who was looking out for the town's interests. I thought of him when I saw Sarah Palin. She started with the PTA and then became the mayor and then governor [of Alaska]. I thought, well, OK. That's someone who knows how to work."

Hitchens goes after Mamet (http://www.apieceofmonologue.com/2011/06/david-mamets-conservative-politics.html):

Propagandistic writing of this kind can be even more boring than it is irritating. For example, Mamet writes in The Secret Knowledge that “the Israelis would like to live in peace within their borders; the Arabs would like to kill them all.” Whatever one’s opinion of that conflict may be, this (twice-made) claim of his abolishes any need to analyze or even discuss it. It has a long way to go before it can even be called simplistic. By now, perhaps, you will not be surprised to know that Mamet regards global warming as a false alarm, and demands to be told “by what magical process” bumper stickers can “save whales, and free Tibet.” This again is not uncharacteristic of his pointlessly aggressive style: who on earth maintains that they can? If I were as prone to sloganizing as Mamet, I’d keep clear of bumper-sticker comparisons altogether.

On the epigraph page, and again on the closing one, Mamet purports to explain the title of his book. He cites the anthropologist Anna Simons on rites of initiation, to the effect that the big secret is very often that there is no big secret. In his own voice, he states: “There is no secret knowledge. The federal government is merely the zoning board writ large.” Again, it is hard to know with whom he is contending. Believers in arcane or esoteric or occult power are distributed all across the spectrum and would, I think, include Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck is among those thanked in Mamet’s acknowledgments for helping free him from “the bemused and sad paternalism” of the liberal airwaves. Would that this were the only sign of the deep confusion that is all that alleviates Mamet’s commitment to the one-dimensional or the flat-out partisan. [Read More (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html)]

Christopher Hitchens, 'David Mamet’s Right-Wing Conversion' (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html)
New York Times, 17 June 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/books/review/book-review-the-secret-knowledge-by-david-mamet.html)

August 29th, 2011, 06:02 PM
* Bachman = unelectable (and won't get the nomination)
* Palin = Ditto
* Romney = could win the whole enchilada, but might not get the nomination
* Paul, Newt, Cain, Santorum (see first bullet)
* Huntsman (zzzzzzzz - no one cares)

Interesting. Let's take Ron Paul for a mnute.

Here's the reason (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homos+don%27t+like+ron+paul) many Dainty Gray Lady readers won't vote for him.

Is that really a good reason?

August 29th, 2011, 06:15 PM
77 years old before the election.

President Geezer.

August 29th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Let's take Ron Paul for a mnute.

Here's the reason (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homos+don't+like+ron+paul) many Dainty Gray Lady readers won't vote for him.

If you want to call us "homos" then why don't you grow a pair and say it right out?

Maybe you're too dainty for such a bold move.

August 29th, 2011, 09:29 PM
I'd hate to upset your dainty disposition, but let's get back to your boyfriend ...

Ron Paul's Disgraces (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/ron-pauls-disgraces.html)

by Zack Beauchamp

Totally in agreement with Ta-Nehisi Coates' reaction (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/im-totally-fine-with-ignoring-ron-paul/244262/) to Ron Paul's ridiculous (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/178485-ron-paul-fema-isnt-helpful) comments about FEMA here:

It's always bugged me that Ron Paul was allowed to basically pull a "Wasn't Me" after a trove of bigoted literature was found bearing his name. Whatever...Ron Paul's thoughts on FEMA, like his thoughts on black people, are the spoutings of a nihilistic reactionary. Having a critique of Libya isn't enough.

Steve Benen piles (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/ron_paul_doubles_down_rejects031838.php?utm_source =feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+washingtonmonthly%2Frss+(Poli tical+Animal+at+Washington+Monthly)&utm_content=Google+Reader) on. Remind me again why we're supposed to lament this man not getting more media coverage? Pareene insists (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/29/ron_paul_coverage) "there is no shortage of Ron Paul coverage":

The Web is full of Ron Paul coverage, and it has been for years. Researchers have found that 75 percent of the Web traffic that isn't dedicated to torrenting porn is taken up by discussions of Ron Paul. (Researchers have not actually found that, because researchers are IGNORING THE RON PAUL RevolUTION.) The sort of people with whom Ron Paul's message resonates are already awash in coverage of Ron Paul. (And the sort of people who find his philosophy repulsive are similarly inundated (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/ron_paul_prefers_hurricanes_to_wipe_out_thousands_ instead_of_measley_dozens).)

August 29th, 2011, 10:04 PM
Researchers have found that 75 percent of the Web traffic that isn't
dedicated to torrenting porn is taken up by discussions of Ron Paul.Are there Ron Paul torrents I can D/L?

August 30th, 2011, 01:35 AM
interesting. Let's take ron paul for a mnute.

here's the reason (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homos+don't+like+ron+paul) many dainty gray lady readers won't vote for him.

Is that really a good reason?


August 30th, 2011, 04:46 AM
WTF (http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-pauls-anti-atheist-bigotry.html) indeed.

Google is your friend (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homos+don%27t+like+ron+paul), friend.

August 30th, 2011, 10:45 AM
You're right. We all got together and decided the that that is the reason we won't support him. You're onto us. In addition we all secretely decided that we were all gay. Everyone of us. (rolls eyes)

@hbcat he went down a similar path on the Jobs thread. Just trying to insitigate a response I guess.

August 30th, 2011, 01:20 PM
You're shooting the messenger. I am not the one running for the GOP nomination, but identifying why he has such militant opposition from certain elements of the media world and why he may not win. His position is often misinterpreted and believes that the states should deal with such matters, not the federal government.

If you want to see a moral, intelligent candidate, look no further than the Ambassador himself, who ran in 00 and 08. He isn't popular with the mall-going masses, but he sure seems to know what he is talking about. He also suffers militant attacks from special interests groups, just like Paul.






August 30th, 2011, 07:38 PM
Oh yeah, Keyes is really a likely candidate.

August 30th, 2011, 08:02 PM

The Geezer


The Birther

August 30th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Really shaping up to be a formidable crowd isn't it? I will stand by the observation I made earlier on a different thread. The best thing Obama has going for him is the GOP field.

August 31st, 2011, 01:28 AM
@hbcat he went down a similar path on the Jobs thread. Just trying to insitigate a response I guess.

Thanks. I don't feed trolls, but was caught off guard this time.

August 31st, 2011, 10:15 AM


September 1st, 2011, 04:27 PM
Maybe. But Obama's lost something that he had last time around. In '08, he was a newcomer who really didn't have a record, so he could really shape his image to be whatever he wanted it to be (and, to his credit, he had the charisma and presentation skills to pull it off.)

Now he has a record, and it ain't great. As a 'leader' he's lately come off looking like an ineffectual wimp. The economy will still likely be in the toilet when the election comes around, and, four years later, he won't get away with blaming it on Bush. And the deficit won't be getting any smaller.

Really shaping up to be a formidable crowd isn't it? I will stand by the observation I made earlier on a different thread. The best thing Obama has going for him is the GOP field.

September 1st, 2011, 04:55 PM
As much as I hate to agree with you, there is a strong element of truth to this especially as it relate to the wimp factor. He has basically rolled over to the House GOP at every turn. He can't even get the day he wants for his speech.

But some of this will fall back on the Tea Party as well. Increasingly they are being viewed as overly-combative and source of why our elected officials can't work togther, and people are sick of it.

September 1st, 2011, 06:33 PM
Oh yeah, Keyes is really a likely candidate.

He actually looks pretty good compared with anyone. Just not running this time.

September 2nd, 2011, 01:13 AM
I will vote for Obama till the cows come home. In wartime, you have to choose a side.

September 2nd, 2011, 08:55 AM
That is probably the way I feel as well.

September 2nd, 2011, 09:52 AM
But what about Rick Santorum, champion (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/the-rickety-arguments-continue-ctd.html) of Catholic virtues? Political trickery (http://laughinghieroglyphic.tumblr.com/post/9610836684) could keep him on his toes ...

Rick Santorum or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Photoshop

"Fight ignorance any way you can, and don’t support ignorance in politics."


September 2nd, 2011, 10:09 AM
Part of complete coverage from
Roland Martin (http://www.cnn.com/US/roland.martin/archive/)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/1px.gif (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2011%2FOPINIO N%2F09%2F02%2Fmartin.obama.power%2Findex.html%3Fer ef%3Dmrss_igoogle_cnn&text=Obama's problem%3F No one fears him&hashtags=cnn) http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/1px.gif http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/1px.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/02/martin.obama.power/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn#) http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/1px.gif http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/1px.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/02/martin.obama.power/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn#)

Obama's problem? No one fears him
By Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
September 2, 2011 8:15 a.m. EDT



Roland Martin: President Obama's "no drama" attitude is hurting him
He says president is too willing to back off and compromise
Martin says Obama has yielded to Republicans on extending Bush tax cuts
Obama's supporters are angered the president isn't standing up to foes, he says

Editor's note: Roland S. Martin (http://rolandsmartin.com/) is a syndicated columnist and author of "The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House." He is a commentator for TV One cable network and host/managing editor of its Sunday morning news show, "Washington Watch with Roland Martin."

(CNN) -- The White House loves to trumpet that one of President Barack Obama's greatest virtues is that he operates above the fray, choosing not to waste time with the political battles in the trenches.

"No Drama Obama" is what we heard during the 2008 presidential campaign -- that his cool, calm demeanor is his biggest asset. But as I look at how the GOP forced the president's hand on extending the Bush tax cuts; created political hay out of the debt ceiling, helping lead the nation to lose its AAA credit rating; and committed the gross disrespect of rebuffing the president's request to speak to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, it's fair to ask: When will this president strike back and exert some presidential muscle?

There is no doubt that President Obama has taken an aggressive position in going after al-Qaeda. We have taken out far more of the terror group's leaders than under President George W. Bush, including killing Osama bin Laden and the group's No. 2 leader. Even the hawkest of hawks can't complain about his decisions in Libya and Afghanistan.

But the 2012 election will not be decided on foreign policy. The economy will trump all that, and on that note, President Obama looks like a man with all the trappings of the most powerful position in the world, but one who uses little to none of the power.

Gergen: How Obama could be the leader in the room (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/01/gergen.obama.jobs.speech/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

This unwillingness to flex his muscle was first seen when Democrats were ready to tar and feather Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman for his stern opposition to then-Sen. Barack Obama in his battle against Sen. John McCain.

Democrats wanted to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments, but Obama quashed that, saying it wasn't necessary. How did Lieberman repay the president for his support? By being a thorn in his side during the health care debate. I would think that when you saved someone's butt, you might want to lean on him when you need to.
Didn't happen.

When the obscene AIG bonuses became public in early 2009, the American people reacted angrily, wanting to punish Wall Street executives. The White House reacted late with righteous indignation; then did nothing.

The president talks tough with banks one day, then has an olive branch for them the next. All while the banks screw Americans out of their homes, even though the American people kept the fat cat bankers from losing their own multiple million-dollar homes across the nation with billions of dollars in bailouts.

What did JP Morgan Chase leader Jamie Dimon do? Rip the president for picking on bankers, saying it was wrong to keep blaming them, even though their destructive plans of jacking up quarterly stock prices with foul schemes nearly destroyed the world financial system.

So the president helps fatten their balance sheets and they still dump on him? Has he jumped on the banks for refusing to modify loans? Nope. Their plan of action, according to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, is voluntary.

It is abundantly clear that President Obama is unwilling to fire back at his critics, who disrespect him and the office of the president. He wants to take the high ground, while his critics are ripping the ground out from underneath him. Instead of taking charge of his agenda, he is willing to let others blow him off to pursue their own.
When he came into office, President Obama decried the ways of Washington, saying voters don't want to see the acrimony. But they sure as hell want to see a president fight for what he believes in, even if that means losing a battle.

The White House bowed to Republicans in the Senate in not appointing Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Protection Bureau. She was considered enemy No. 1 for them. So by appointing Richard Cordray, the Obama administration hoped the Senate would recess, allowing them to make his appointment effective during the recess. There was one tiny problem: The only thing the GOP hated more than Warren was the bureau itself. They didn't recess, and now Cordray will be put through the wringer on Tuesday during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Has the president made a stink about the GOP refusing to allow his appointees to move forward? Every now and then, but it is nothing close to the heat President George W. Bush and his supporters put on the Senate when his conservative judges and appointees were being held up.

Maybe White House senior adviser David Plouffe and campaign manager Jim Messina think the tactic the president is taking is appealing to independent voters. But the unwillingness to go to the mat on anything has angered some of his ardent supporters, who feel the White House will leave them hanging in the wind when it's time to fight.

After his Martha's Vineyard vacation, President Obama signaled he was ready to do battle leading up to the 2012 re-election. But the bungling, and eventual capitulation, over when he would address a joint session of Congress to present a jobs plan shows that we have seen more of the same: a decisive action taken by Obama, only to back down and acquiesce to the GOP.

After Obama buckled to Speaker John Boehner by postponing the speech to Thursday, a hardcore Democrat, who hates anything the GOP does and has never voted for a Republican for president, texted me the following: "Does the POTUS need back surgery? I think he does. He needs a spine transplant."

President Obama's feeble attempt to engage his foes is angering those who are ready to do battle and have his back. I've heard it from folks in the labor movement, civil rights leaders, women and young folks. And don't be surprised if polling shows that independents want a president who will stick to his guns, even if they disagree with him on policy.

Americans respond to decisiveness. They respond to a leader who makes clear what he wants and will use the power of the presidency to lead his troops up the hill to take on those who oppose him.
Right now, it appears President Obama is working to not lose, as opposed to fighting to win. And that simply ain't gonna cut it.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

September 2nd, 2011, 10:17 AM
I was just about to post that very article, it is on my clipboard. THere is a lot of truth to this.

September 2nd, 2011, 11:16 AM
Yes, but I don't think there'll be enough like you to prop him up. He generated excitement last time around. That drew a lot of people in. He's lost that, and i don't think he'll be able to get that back.

Combine that with the effect of the down economy, and I think he'll be in trouble.

Now the Republicans can still screw it up. But they have a huge opportunity not to.

I will vote for Obama till the cows come home. In wartime, you have to choose a side.

September 2nd, 2011, 11:44 AM
Who do you see as having enough Tea Party appeal to win the nomination, while being moderate enough to swing the indies? Certainly not Perry.

The problem with the GOP is that the ideology of its core base is just slightly to the right of Attila The Hun. Accommodating the base will get someone the nomination, but will disadvantage their chances for the General Election.

September 2nd, 2011, 06:05 PM
If you get out of the big metro areas, Perry seems much more mainstream. And, remember, the electoral college biases the decison against the big states. Bush won twice (well one was really a tie), once without the majority of the popular vote, without a number of the big liberal states.

And, also, elections are usually decided on the economy. That's not looking like it'll be doing so well for Obama.

September 5th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Texas Blacks advise looking at the real Rick Perry
Written by Fcadmin | 05 September 2011

By Talibah Chikwendu, Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers

- Recently joining the race for the 2012 Republican nomination for president is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Perry, in his third and final term at the helm of the state, has rapidly moved to the front of still fluctuating field of candidates.[/h]
Perry's standard line is that he can do for the nation what he has done for Texas, which he says is create jobs, maintain public education and balance the budget without raising taxes. But the numbers, and Black residents of the state, tell a different story.

"I just want America to wake up and look at the true picture," said Karen Hasan, a postal service supervisor and Texas resident for 32 years. "He's [Rick Perry] talking out both sides of his neck."

Residents speaking to the AFRO about Gov. Perry were largely in agreement, citing unemployment, substandard jobs and a failing public education system among the governor's biggest shortcomings. "I haven't seen him try to create any jobs for people or anything," said Texas native Regina Holley, 53. "I don't think he's done anything that's worked out well for Texas."

Charles Dorsey, 62 and a Texan for 35 years, said many of the jobs being created don't even pay minimum wage, adding, "Texas has the lowest average hourly income of any state in the United States other than Mississippi. I think people need to understand the type of jobs being created."

Along with the unemployment and jobs situation in the state, native Texan Ronni Bowman, third year student at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law, referenced the large number of residents without health insurance.

Saying that he panders to special interests, Melanie Spratt-Anderson, the first Black and three-term Upton County attorney, said Perry's only interest in health care came in the form of a 2007 executive order to inoculate girls, by the sixth grade, with Merck's Gardasil while at the same time refusing to sign legislation to renew the Children's Health Insurance Program. The state legislature was able to stop this action and Perry's connections to Merck were under scrutiny. She said, "Anybody that has enough money to contribute to him, will get what they pay for."

Dorsey questioned Perry's transparency. "Unfortunately, the people of Texas cannot even get his calendar for last month or months before. ... One of the things that really bothers me is that the guy is so secretive about what he's doing that every seven days all of his emails are purged. So people don't really know what he is doing and what he has done."

Dorsey also called Perry "one of the biggest phonies I have ever seen," with George Powell, a 15 year Texas resident, adding, "He has a reputation for being all fluff. Everything is ceremonial."

Which probably explains why each one dismissed Perry's Houston day of prayer and fasting. Powell said, "Clearly it was just to jumpstart his campaign." Hasan added, "I think it's a ploy to get more votes."

Saying that Texas politicians pander to conservative Christians, Spratt-Anderson added, "It was purely to get the votes. I wish Christians would stop falling for that."

"That's why I'm saying he's a phony," said Dorsey. "Up until recently, Rick Perry has not been a very religious person. In fact, if you ask his church, he's only tithed like $98 for the whole year. But now, all of a sudden, he's become this religious person, [saying] that we can pray everything away.

"Unfortunately if people fall for this, we're in a world of trouble."

No one recommended Perry as a candidate to look at when voting for president. "I think we'd be looking at another George Bush," said Spratt Anderson. "... I don't think it would be good."

Powell concurred, saying that while Perry is probably the best in the Republican field right now, all that really means is that he is just the least objectionable of a lot of really bad choices. Holley said, "He'd just bring more destruction to the people of the United States."

"The country is in trouble and needs someone with the ability to get us out reasonably," said Dorsey. "I want people to really look at the true Rick Perry. Because if they did, they would never vote for him."

Last Updated ( Monday, 05 September 2011 06:37 )

September 11th, 2011, 03:29 PM
Interesting. Let's take Ron Paul for a mnute.

I'll stand by my assessment of Ron Paul from an earlier post assessing the GOP candidates.

If the election were held based on the number of and enthusiam of internet posts, college students, and straw poll voters, Ron Paul would be nominated (and lose to Obama). If the election is based on actual registered voters casting votes at real ballot boxes, Ron Paul is unelectable. If not winning a single primary = being the GOP nominee, I guess Ron Paul will be it!

September 11th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Texas Blacks advise looking at the real Rick Perry
Written by Fcadmin | 05 September 2011

By Talibah Chikwendu, Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers


Interesting article. However, how many GOP primary voters read this paper? Or would give it much credance if they did?

September 12th, 2011, 09:24 AM
Bachmann as a running mate makes even less sense than Bachmann at the top of a ticket.

Don't be fooled by a straw poll in Iowa; she isn't nationally electable, and would be a negative on a ticket.Well, that didn't take long. Bachmann has lost most of her Tea Bag support, and has plummeted out of the race. Her campaign reorganization is just blah-blah. We didn't even have to wait for the Marcus Factor.

Perry is now the Tea Bag candidate.

Romney is the Anti Tea Bag candidate.

September 12th, 2011, 11:01 AM
Now there's a choice for you!

September 20th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Obama's deficit proposal marks a move away from compromise
By calling for a millionaire's tax and threatening to veto any bill that doesn't address revenue as well as spending,
Obama tacitly admits than his push for a 'grand bargain' with the GOP failed.

President Obama walks from the White House Rose Garden after discussing his plan to cut the deficit.
(Jason Reed, Reuters / September 20, 2011)

By Peter Nicholas and Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau
September 19, 2011, 7:54 p.m.

Reporting from Washington—
Over the summer President Obama (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) pushed a "grand bargain" that called on Republicans (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) and Democrats (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic) to forge a compromise: Each would agree to painful sacrifices that would slash the nation's deficit and shore up the social safety net for decades.

The approach failed to achieve a deal, angered many Democrats and coincided with a steady drop in Obama's prospects for reelection.

In releasing a new deficit-cutting plan Monday, Obama displayed a striking change in course. His shift in both substance and rhetoric amounted to a tacit admission that the strategy he had pursued from April through August had failed.

Gone was the effort to strike a deal with Republicans. Gone were the summertime proposals to consider raising the eligibility age for Medicare (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/government-health-care/medicare-HEPRG00002.topic) or to change the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. Gone too was the conciliatory language about finding common ground and challenging the orthodoxies of both parties.

In their place was a firm veto threat, changes in Medicare that would largely protect beneficiaries, a demand for higher taxes from the wealthy and a catchy slogan, the "Buffett rule," designed to convey Obama's belief that people earning more than $1 million a year should not be able to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income households.

"It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million," Obama said. "Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness."

The country faces a choice — higher taxes on the wealthy or deep, painful spending cuts, he declared.

"This is not class warfare. It's math," Obama said.

Even late last week, the degree to which the White House (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/executive-branch/white-house-PLCUL000110.topic) would shift course remained unclear. Administration officials were still weighing possible cuts in Medicare benefits when they held a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, who argued strongly against that — a message the White House apparently took to heart.

The 90-minute session went a long way toward shoring up Obama's support from his allies on Capitol Hill even if they disagree with specific aspects of his proposals, as several key Democrats certainly will.

Republicans, meanwhile, rejected Obama's proposals just minutes after he rolled out his plan in a Rose Garden speech.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/john-a.-boehner-PEPLT007549.topic) (R-Ohio) said, "Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership."

Sen. Mitch McConnell (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/mitch-mcconnell-PEPLT004312.topic) of Kentucky, the chamber's Republican leader, dismissed the proposal as a "massive tax hike, phantom savings."

But those Republican rejections may not trouble the White House because Obama's new proposal was designed less as a solution to the deficit problem than as a political argument to put before voters. It frames what the president's advisors hope will be a stark choice for Americans: a Democratic Party that seeks a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to pare the deficit versus a GOP that has ruled out tax increases of any sort, even on millionaires.

"The president put down a marker today, and he did it more forcefully than we have seen before," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after Obama's speech, reflecting the Democratic hope. "It makes the Republican position almost indefensible."

Despite his sagging position in the polls, Obama and his aides have some reason to believe their new approach could work. Most Americans tell pollsters they believe that those earning more than $250,000 a year should pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit. And a solid majority support the president's call for ending the George W. Bush (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/george-bush-PEPLT000857.topic)-era tax cuts for the wealthiest families which, Obama reiterated on Monday, were supposed to be temporary tax breaks.

"If Republicans want to go in a different direction from where the American people are, that is to their own political detriment," said Bill Burton, a former White House aide and cofounder of the super-PAC Priorities USA Action.

Obama's plan also could galvanize a Democratic Party that has been demoralized. A Bloomberg poll this month showed that 44% of Obama's supporters like him as much as ever, but 48% said they either no longer supported him or their enthusiasm had dissipated.

Democrats, some of whom were distancing themselves from Obama as recently as last week, rushed to compliment him Monday, with statements of support also coming from groups on the left that had been critical.

MoveOn.org, for example, will air a 30-second TV ad this week touting the Buffett rule, named for billionaire tax code critic and Obama supporter Warren Buffett (http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/financial-business-services/warren-buffett-PEBSL000005.topic). The spot urges people to call Congress and urge them to "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires so all Americans pay their fair share."

On Monday, Obama appeared ready for a showdown with Republicans, vowing to veto any bill that cuts entitlement programs without also including revenue increases. "We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable," he said.

The president's deficit proposal now goes to the congressional "super committee," a group of six Democrats and six Republicans charged with cutting at least $1.5 trillion from federal deficits over the next 10 years. If the committee fails to come up with a proposal to send to Congress by Nov. 23, it will trigger automatic cuts to take effect in 2013, split between military and nonmilitary spending.

Now that Obama has released his deficit proposal, he will quickly return to pushing the legislation that addresses the deepest of voter concerns: jobs. Obama's reelection hinges more on the unemployment rate, currently at 9.1% nationally, than it does on debt levels.

Even as he unveiled his much-anticipated deficit reduction proposal, the president worked in a plug for his $447-billion jobs package, intended to boost hiring through a mix of federal spending to rebuild roads, bridges and schools; tax cuts for employers and consumers; and tax increases on the affluent.

"I'm ready to sign a bill," he said. "I've got the pens all ready."



Noam N. Levey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/)


Now if only he can hold his guns...

September 20th, 2011, 08:35 AM
In their place was a firm veto threat, changes in Medicare that would largely protect beneficiaries, a demand for higher taxes from the wealthy and a catchy slogan, the "Buffett rule," designed to convey Obama's belief that people earning more than $1 million a year should not be able to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income households.

Actually, it is not the RATE that is important, but rather the actual $ collected.

I believe the "Buffet" rule was in response to a comment by Warren that he PAYS LESS TAXES than his secretary.


Not rates, not any other language to hide the sheer fact that since he is being taxed on his earnings from stock and other dividends that his net tax cost was less than one of his higher paid, but significantly poorer, employees.

Forbes response to this being "Well, huh huh, look at the 70's!!! huh huh....". His point, semi valid, was that if there was more of an expense and a risk to investing, we would not see so much of it and our economy would stagnate.

Missing from the interview were questions about the government bailout of other "investments" that had gone sour, or the fact that there is a gross imbalance now between earned dollars and actual taxes paid that could easily be shifted into a more evenly weighted means of government funding. The problem being that everybody will naturally decry the loss of a dollar and shift to make it so it does not happen.


We need to encourage private investment and development, but we have already seen that our companies are more interested in the bottom line. if we want a true balance, we have to start looking for a way to make it so our own strength stops bleeding across our borders through our "own" companies.

September 20th, 2011, 11:00 AM
RE: the effect raising taxes on the CEO class has on 'Job Creation'
I fail to understand how JPMorgan's hiring practices are influenced by Jaime Dimon's personal income tax rate.

September 20th, 2011, 11:23 AM
Well, if that billionaire had to pay an extra million a year in taxes, he would not invest in companies like Exxon and Apple, therefore ruining the economy and stifling job creation!!!

Don't you know, if rich people are charged more, even if that comes to the same % as those above the poverty line, they crawl up inside their shells and never come out!!!

Seriously though, I think Forbes DOES have some good ideas about simplifying the tax code, but the way he defends the current dividend tax rates.... When, on average, these earn more than salaries/wages do, and that only those WITH substantial capital have a chance at earning MORE, it is a rather bizarre subject to hoist a banner behind.

September 24th, 2011, 07:11 PM
What Obama Should Really Do To Spur Job Growth

infotechsailor 1 week ago
hope this was recorded for youtube… schiff’s insights are byfar the most valuable and realistic advice that the congressmen will hear. unfortunately, they are also the least beneficial personally for either the congressmen or their wall street donors, and thus, least likely to be heeded.
nevertheless, Schiff’s austrian school economics will gain in popularity for the simple fact that they describe the reality of economics, versus the voodoo practices of today’s keynesian’s in the white house, wall street, and our nation’s universities.

September 24th, 2011, 07:37 PM
Hey, Rick Perry just lost the Florida Straw Poll to Herman Cain! He got about the same amount of votes as Romney, who was officially not participating, although the party put his name on the ballot anyway.

His folks will try to spin this as not being a setback, but it is really embarrassing, since just yesterday Perry himself was talking about how big a deal Florida was to him.


September 25th, 2011, 01:34 AM
The Republican Pack just keeps spreading their stuff far and wide. They're going most conservative with each of these early votes.

September 25th, 2011, 08:37 AM
So who is this pizza guy?

Perry can always come to NY and open a chain of Rick's Famous Original Pizza.

September 26th, 2011, 02:05 PM
Hey, Rick Perry just lost the Florida Straw Poll to Herman Cain! He got about the same amount of votes as Romney, who was officially not participating, although the party put his name on the ballot anyway.

His folks will try to spin this as not being a setback, but it is really embarrassing, since just yesterday Perry himself was talking about how big a deal Florida was to him.


Herman Cain. Really? ROFLMAO

September 29th, 2011, 01:23 PM
So much for Rick Perry.



By Michael A. Memoli September 29, 2011, 7:25 a.m.

A new Fox News (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media-industry/television-industry/fox-news-channel-%28tv-network%29-ORCRP000017476.topic) poll shows that the state of the Republican race for president is as fluid as ever as the first filing deadlines approach, with Rick Perry (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/government/rick-perry-PEHST001561.topic)'s instant front-runner status fading away as Herman Cain (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/government/herman-cain-PEPLT00008439.topic) makes a sudden leap to the top tier.

Even as some in the party cast about for a new candidate, it's former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/government/mitt-romney-PEPLT007376.topic) holding steady with about 1 in 4 Republicans (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) saying they'd back him as the party's nominee for the fourth consecutive poll.

At 23% in this survey, conducted from Sept. 25-27, that's good for first place. Perry comes in second at 19%, down from 29% in a poll conducted in late August, just after he entered the race. Cain, the former pizza executive, has jumped from 6% to 17%, placing him third.

And don't look now, but Newt Gingrich (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/arts-culture/newt-gingrich-PEHST000779.topic) has also reached double digits, climbing from 3% to 11%. Michele Bachmann (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/michele-m.-bachmann-PEPLT000207.topic), once the darling of the field, is tied with Rick Santorum at the back of the pack with 3%.

Among the full sample of voters, including Democrats (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic) and independents, only 7% say they are very impressed with the field of Republican candidates challenging President Obama (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic), while 31% are somewhat impressed. Thirty percent say they're "not at all impressed," and 28% are "not very impressed."

More voters think that Chris Christie (http://wirednewyork.com/topic/politics/government/christopher-j.-christie-PEPLT0000017577.topic) should not run than those who think he should, by a margin of 39-32%.

In general election matchups, Obama leads Romney 45-42%, and Rick Perry 47-39%. But asked for a "best guess" as to whether Obama will be reelected, exactly half think he won't, and 40% think he will.

The survey of 925 registered voters had a margin of error of 3%; the Republican sub-sample of 363 voters had a margin of error of 5%. It was conducted jointly by Democratic pollster Anderson Robbins Research and Republican pollster Shaw & Co. Research

September 29th, 2011, 01:47 PM
Rick Perry sags, Herman Cain rides surging Fox pollFTFY


September 29th, 2011, 03:56 PM
Surging with 14 months to go.

When will Herman peak?

Seems the GOP candidate shelf life is about 3-5 weeks.

September 30th, 2011, 09:07 AM
Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election

By JACKIE CALMES (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jackie_calmes/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and MARK LANDLER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/mark_landler/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — With his support among blue-collar white voters far weaker than among white-collar independents, President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is charting an alternative course to re-election should he be unable to win Ohio and other industrial states traditionally essential to Democratic presidential victories.

Without conceding ground anywhere, Mr. Obama is fighting hard for Southern and Rocky Mountain states he won in 2008, and some he did not, in calculating how to assemble the necessary 270 electoral votes. He is seeking to prove that those victories on formerly Republican turf were not flukes but the start of a trend that will make Democrats competitive there for years.

“There are a lot of ways for us to get to 270, and it’s not just the traditional map,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist. “That’s why we’re laying the groundwork across the country to compete on the widest possible playing field next year.”

While Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have slid across the board as unemployment remains high, what buoys Democrats are the changing demographics of formerly Republican states like Colorado, where Democrats won a close Senate race in 2010, as well as Virginia and North Carolina.

With growing cities and suburbs, they are populated by increasing numbers of educated and higher-income independents, young voters, Hispanics and African-Americans, many of them alienated by Republicans’ Tea Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) agenda.

“The biggest challenge” for Republicans, said Tad Devine, a senior strategist for Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s presidential campaigns, “is that they have to deal with what I would call the Obama electorate. And the Obama electorate is not the electorate that we have seen in America since I started working on presidential campaigns in 1980.”

Even so, Mr. Devine and other Democrats do not expect an easy race. “It’s not going to be a triumphal march to almost 54 percent of the vote and 365 electoral votes” like in 2008, he said. “It’s going to be a hard slog, like the ones we did in 2000 and 2004 and came up short. The only difference is, Obama has got places to go that we couldn’t go. We couldn’t even target North Carolina when Kerry’s running mate” — John Edwards, then a senator — “was from North Carolina.”

For Republicans, the reality of those changing demographics tempers their heightened hopes for beating Mr. Obama.

Terry Nelson, a campaign adviser to George W. Bush, John McCain and, this year, the former candidate Tim Pawlenty, said he was “pretty optimistic” for 2012, partly because Mr. Obama’s support among lower-income, less-educated white voters, never high, has dropped enough that Republicans see good prospects for winning industrial-belt states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

But, Mr. Nelson acknowledged: “The country is changing. In every election cycle, every year, every day, this country becomes more ethnically diverse. And that has an impact on the kind of coalition that you need to put together to win.” He added, “The truth is, Obama needs fewer white voters in 2012 than he did in 2008.”

Mr. Obama’s recent travel reflects his calculus. On Tuesday, he was in Colorado, at a high school in a heavily Hispanic Denver neighborhood, to promote his jobs plan. This month he was in Ohio, but also in Virginia and North Carolina; he may return soon on a bus tour of neighboring states, aides say. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was in Northern Virginia on Thursday.

Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado together have more than double the number of Ohio’s votes in the Electoral College — 37 versus 18. And Obama advisers say that the same demographic factors at play in those states are also present in states Mr. Obama lost in 2008 — like Arizona (whose senior senator, Mr. McCain, was his rival) and Georgia.

Except for Indiana, a long shot, Obama advisers say the president will be favored or competitive everywhere he won before, including Ohio. But polls underscore how tough a task he will have with independents in the industrial belt, where income and education levels are below the national average, compared with states like Colorado and Virginia with higher-income, better-educated independents.

The latest nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll this month showed that 51 percent of independents with household incomes below $50,000 disapproved of Mr. Obama’s performance, as did 57 percent of those with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000. But independents with household incomes above $100,000 approved of his job performance by 50 percent to 43 percent.

In Colorado, the template for a repeat victory is last year’s campaign of Senator Michael Bennet. A Democratic novice, Mr. Bennet defeated a Tea Party Republican in a year when Republicans were triumphant nationwide. He built a coalition of Latino voters, Democrats like himself who are college-educated transplants to Colorado, and independents in Denver and Boulder.

“No candidate can win this state without winning independent voters,” said Mr. Bennet, who joined Mr. Obama on his Denver visit, along with Gov. John W. Hickenlooper and Senator Mark Udall; all three will help Mr. Obama’s organization there in 2012.

With independents, Mr. Bennet said, “The question that resonated in 2010 was, Do you want somebody who will go to Washington and try to work to solve problems, or do you want somebody who will simply be a partisan?” They will seek a problem-solver again next year, he added, “and I think the president has a strong case to make.”

A challenge for Mr. Obama in Colorado and elsewhere is mobilizing Hispanic voters, many of whom complain that he has not tried hard enough to overcome Republican opposition to immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) legislation. And appealing to independents will require some deft politics, since Mr. Obama’s recent switch to a more confrontational approach with Congressional Republicans could cost independent support even as he energizes Democratic voters.

Virginia and North Carolina, with their respected universities, technology centers and diverse suburbs, are similar enough in their changing demographics that Mr. Devine suggests they can be viewed as a single state for purposes of presidential politics. Their combined 28 electoral votes are nearly equal to the 29 votes of Florida, which was traditionally joined with Ohio as must-haves for Democrats.

The change is evident outside Washington, where Virginia’s northern suburbs now dominate in state elections, and south around Richmond.
“It’s the difference between the Old Dominion and the New Dominion,” said Mike Henry, campaign manager for Tim Kaine, the former governor and former Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) chairman who is running for the Senate. Pointing to “an influx of Latinos, African-American families, Asians,” Mr. Henry said, “the demographic characteristics of the state are totally different than what they were 10 years ago.”


September 30th, 2011, 09:30 AM
... or at least I hope he does. But why does it always seem to amount to more of an election strategy than a governing strategy?


September 29, 2011

An Icy Political Vision

Taxes, spending and jobs dominate the conversation in Washington, but there is a great deal more at stake in next year’s election, as Republicans know well. It sometimes seems as if they are the only ones who talk about their values, but they put forward an elitist and narrow vision that largely favors the upwardly mobile, the healthy, the native-born American and the needs of the corporation.

This cold message is disguised, of course, cloaked in warm-sounding talk of solid American traditions and values. Democrats, including President Obama, have shied away from these issues or have been too late and too weak in providing voters with an alternative vision, with their own larger goals for the nation.

In the last few days, however, Mr. Obama has finally begun to broaden his challenge to Republicans. He is taking on their obeisance to wealth and refusal to reanimate the economy, as well as their callousness. “This is a contest of values,” Mr. Obama said on Sunday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/26/remarks-president-dnc-event-san-jose-california-0). “This is a choice about who we are and what we stand for. And whoever wins this next election is going to set the template for this country for a long time to come.”

The Republican template has been in stark view at presidential debates lately. It is a program to wind down the government’s longstanding guarantee of health care to the elderly and the poor and incinerate the Democrats’ new promise to cover the uninsured; to abolish the Department of Education and its effort to raise national standards; to stop virtually all regulation of the environment and the financial industry; to reimpose military discrimination against gays and lesbians, deport immigrants, cut unemployment insurance and nutrition programs, raise taxes on the poor (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html) and lower them for the rich.

The candidates who pander to their party’s lowest instincts are often egged on by the heartlessness of audience members at the debates. “Has anybody been watching the debates lately?” Mr. Obama asked in San Jose, Calif. He added: “You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay. That’s not reflective of who we are.” (Mr. Obama might also have mentioned the lusty cheers (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/cheering-on-the-death-machine.html) for Gov. Rick Perry’s record of presiding over 234 executions in Texas.)

There are many voters who are understandably dispirited or disillusioned with the Democrats. They might consider following a presidential suggestion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/27/remarks-president-dnc-event-los-angeles-ca) and spending an evening or two watching the Republican debates. The Democrats lose their nerve at times. They are divided and factionalized and unsure, but they largely do not share what Mr. Obama called “a cramped vision that says you’re on your own.”

In making this long-overdue statement of contrast, Mr. Obama is animated by more than his own re-election. Should he be returned to office along with Republican majorities in the House or Senate, the country will have to endure years more of torturous partisan battles, as many or more steps backward as forward. At every level of the ballot, Republican candidates should be asked if they really want this to be a country where we’re all on our own.

October 1st, 2011, 07:29 PM
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/nyp_logo_230x32.png (http://www.nypost.com/) Updated: Fri., Sep. 30, 2011, 11:39 PM http://www.nypost.com/images/icon_home.png

Bam’s Carter-like soft-sellLast Updated: 11:39 PM, September 30, 2011
Posted: 10:29 PM, September 30, 2011.

Here’s President Obama’s newest strategy for re-election: Blame the sagging economy on the American public itself.
Good luck with that one, Mr. President.

“The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft -- and, you know, we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track,” he said in an interview this week.

Translation: Obama’s policies have nothing to do with the nation’s economic troubles -- it’s everyone else’s fault. Right.
Hey, it’s progress, anyway: At least it’s no longer George W. Bush being held responsible for all Obama’s failures.
Then again, it’s not exactly clear how Americans will enjoy being thrown under the bus by Obama for having been out of work so long and for the nation’s chronically weak growth rates.

But a similar tack by Jimmy Carter in July 1979 -- when he made his famous “malaise” speech -- might offer insights.
Back then, Carter harangued Americans for a “crisis of confidence that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis ... in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.”

Carter never actually uttered the word “malaise.” But the term stuck nonetheless, because -- as with Obama’s characterization -- it revealed Carter’s view of the nation’s ailing condition, and just who he thought should get the blame for it.

Then, too, the economy was sputtering and joblessness was rampant. And the man in the White House was utterly clueless as to how to fix things.
No doubt, that contributed materially to Carter’s fate as a one-term president.

Now, Obama seeks to toughen-up “soft” Americans with (get this!) more government handouts -- such as grants to states to prop up their bloated public-sector payrolls.

And he hopes to pay for runaway federal spending with yet more taxes on the “rich” -- that is, the most productive parts of the economy, folks in the private sector.
Americans are soft?
What about goverment?
Give Obama some credit, though.

So far, at least, he’s steered clear of that infernal red cardigan Carter wore during his notorious America-in-decline moment.
Even better, inflation hasn’t yet hit the Carter-era double-digit levels.
But watch out: That may be just a matter of time.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/bam_carter_like_soft_sell_S8UNxUXFkRw4YFHxiGaS8H#i xzz1ZZkH3DJy

October 1st, 2011, 08:52 PM
Right, Mr. Softee ...

As opposed to the team of Do Nothings and Obstructionist Hard Liners who are pulling us all down.

October 1st, 2011, 09:04 PM
I'm even shocked and appauled that Mr. Obama would even want to think that way.

October 1st, 2011, 10:54 PM
Yeah, we are so sharp we produce better cars and cheaper raw goods than any other country.

Why is it that people hate the truth if it means that they have to shoulder ANY blame for what is happening? When did we lose our spine and our actual pride in workmanship?

October 1st, 2011, 11:16 PM
Would that be about the same time the corporate bosses started shutting down plants, laying off thousands of workers and shipping the jobs overseas?

October 1st, 2011, 11:31 PM
Not to mention hiring people from other countries to do the same amount of work that we were doing, for far less wages than we were getting to do the same jobs.

Used to be that the longer you were with an employer, the more job seniority, job security, benefits and wages you got. That all went out the window for cheap labor, low benefits, low wages and people from other countries not caring what the work conditions were as long as they have a job.

Now companies are chomping at the bit to get rid of you and show you the door, saying that you're costing them too much money because of your high seniority, high job security, high benefits and high wages.

I was one of the victims of that. Had only 3 weeks left to get my retirement in, but didn't get there because we were laid off!

October 2nd, 2011, 04:43 PM
All that pretty hair and fancy suits ain't gonna do Slick Rick much good ...

Herman Cain Attacks Rick Perry Over His N-Word-Named Family Hunting Parcel

TALKING POINTS MEMO (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/herman-cain-rips-into-rick-perry-over-n-word-named-family-hunting-parcel.php?ref=fpa)
October 2, 2011

Rick Perry’s campaign is pushing back hard on a tough Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rick-perry-familys-hunting-camp-still-known-to-many-by-old-racially-charged-name/2011/10/01/gIQAOhY5DL_story.html) published Sunday that described the history of Perry family hunting plot in Texas once decorated with a rock bearing its name: “Niggerhead.”

But as the campaign worked to shoot the story down — telling Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64911.html) it “contains ‘incorrect, inconsistent’ claims” — one of Perry’s rivals for the GOP nomination, businessman Herman Cain, pounced.

The gist of the Post story about Perry, which includes the tale of a painted rock bearing the word “Niggerhead” that once greeted entrants to the property (and conflicting stories about when in the past it was finally obscured) ...

At Rick Perry’s Texas hunting spot, camp’s old racially charged name lingered

Washington Post
By Stephanie McCrummen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/stephanie-mccrummen/2011/03/02/ABdyvmP_page.html)
Published: October 1

Paint Creek, Tex. — In the early years of his political career, Rick Perry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/candidate/rick-perry/2011/09/24/gIQAQBN0tK_page.html) began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp, a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance.

“Niggerhead,” it read.

Ranchers who once grazed cattle on the 1,070-acre parcel on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River called it by that name well before Perry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-in-the-spotlight/2011/07/27/gIQAXQSneI_gallery.html) and his father, Ray, began hunting there in the early 1980s. There is no definitive account of when the rock first appeared on the property. In an earlier time, the name on the rock was often given to mountains and creeks and rock outcroppings across the country. Over the years, civil rights groups and government agencies have had some success changing those and other racially offensive names that dotted the nation’s maps.

But the name of this particular parcel did not change for years after it became associated with Rick Perry, first as a private citizen, then as a state official and finally as Texas governor. Some locals still call it that. As recently as this summer, the slablike rock — lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint — remained by the gated entrance to the camp.


Perry’s version of events differs in many respects from the recollections of seven people, interviewed by The Washington Post, who spoke in detail of their memories of seeing the rock with the name at various points during the years that Perry was associated with the property through his father, partners or his signature on a lease.

Some who had watched Perry’s political ascent recalled their reaction to the name on the rock and their worry that it could become a political liability for Perry.

“I remember the first time I went through that pasture and saw that,” said Ronnie Brooks, a retired game warden who began working in the region in 1981 and who said he guided three or four turkey shoots for Rick Perry when Perry was a state legislator between 1985 and 1990. “. . . It kind of offended me, truthfully.”

Brooks, who said he holds Perry “in the highest esteem,” said that at some point after Perry began bringing lawmakers to the camp, the rock was turned over. Brooks could not recall exactly when. He said he did not know who turned the rock over.

Another local who visited the property with Perry and the legislators in those years recalled seeing the rock with the name clearly visible.

“I thought, ‘This is going to embarrass Rick some day,’ ” said this person, who did not want to be named, fearing negative consequences from speaking on the subject ...

October 3rd, 2011, 12:10 PM
Hope + Change 2.0


October 3rd, 2011, 12:48 PM
I saw the clip on the news.

Spot-on. He basically just called out the Republicans on that one. Regardless of their own political views on the subject, those ass-lickers should not have just stood there when the crowd boo'd.

October 3rd, 2011, 01:00 PM
http://media.npr.org/chrome/news/nprlogo_138x46.gif (http://www.npr.org/)

The New Christie Minstrels

by Ken Rudin

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. on Sept. 27

President Obama's numbers are shaky, as is the nation's economy, but it's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who seem to be most uneasy as we approach 2012. Ralph Nader's suggestion notwithstanding, Obama remains unlikely to face a significant challenger in next year's primaries. Republican voters, meanwhile, have at least eight choices for the nomination, and yet that may not be enough.

The latest would-be candidate to save the party? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

For more than a year now, Christie has been unequivocal about not pursuing the White House. I'm not ready for it, he said over and over. Last November he memorably told reporters, "Short of suicide, I don't really know what I'd have to do to convince you people that I'm not running." But the speculation never went away; in fact, as other potential saviors dropped out of favor, the interest in Christie only intensified. And since last Tuesday, when Christie gave a powerful speech at the Reagan library in California that tore apart Obama — and which was met by a plea from a woman in the audience that he had to run — the clamor has been non-stop. When he told her, "I take it in and I'm listening to every word of it and feeling it," that somehow became the "hint" everyone was waiting for, that he was reconsidering. There was an especially surreal moment on Wednesday, when all three cable networks were running breathless stories about Christie's future.

There are, as everyone knows, so many reasons why a Christie candidacy is unlikely to happen. First of all, with the presidential calendar looking to kick off its caucuses and primaries the first week of January, Christie would have less than three months to raise the money and build the organization needed to competitive. Some state filing deadlines come as soon as this month. (Those pushing for him to run are said to include people who were instrumental in Rudy Giuliani's 2008 White House bid, and we remember how well that went.) He would have to answer to past positions seen as heresy to conservatives, everything from global warming to gun control. True, these positions may make sense when you're running in New Jersey. (Similarly, think of Romney's positions when he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 or the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002.) It's a completely different ballgame and audience when the goal is winning the Republican presidential nomination. If Rick Perry has been under attack for some less-than-perfect conservative opinions, imagine what Christie would go through.

And many argue that the moment Christie announces would probably be the high point of his candidacy. That was what happened with Fred Thompson in 2008, whose "can't miss" presidential dreams fizzled almost immediately after declaring.

And yet, it's conservatives who have been the loudest in calling for Christie to step forward. Perhaps it all stems from their unease at having Romney lead the party against Obama next year. Thus, the desire for alternatives. Michele Bachmann was the conservatives' candidate du jour after she won the Iowa straw poll, but her momentum barely lasted a semaine. Then came Perry, who joined the race late and immediately became the new frontrunner, but whose status is now in question after a series of weak and uneven debate performances. And don't forget that brief, if illogical, burst of love directed at Donald Trump for a short time.

It's pretty easy to see Christie's appeal. While Democrats see him as rude and boorish, Republicans love his style. He is a tough talking governor who has stuck it to the unions in a blue state, cut the budget and refused to raise taxes. He opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. He, perhaps more than any other, fits the Howard Beale I'm-as-mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-going-to-take-this-anymore role, a sentiment widely heard in the GOP since the rise of the Tea Party.

It's the nature of the beast to want what you can't have, and that's been a constant in presidential campaigns for a long time. If only Mario Cuomo would run, Democrats said in 1992. Four years later it was Republicans who dreamed of Colin Powell getting in the race. That's what's going on now with Christie. Obama's re-elect numbers have convinced many in the GOP that he can be taken next year. They want to make sure they have the best candidate to do it and, for now, Christie is the one they're focusing on. Paul Mulshine, a columnist with the Newark Star-Ledger, says, "I for one will not be shocked if he suddenly decides he can no longer put his personal needs above the call of the country to become its savior. ... My read on the guy is he can't resist."

I'm not so sure. I still say he doesn't run. But the amount of pressure he is must under right now has to be overwhelming.

Weight Weight Don't Tell Me. Friday's Washington Post had two separate columns, by Eugene Robinson and Al Kamen, both focusing on Christie's weight and both accompanied by hardly flattering photos of the governor with Obama. Kamen gives us a hefty history lesson: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sizing-up-gov-christies-chances/2011/09/29/gIQAfEd87K_story.html)
If Christie were to jump into the race for the GOP nomination, he would stand out — not just for his policy positions but also for his girth. He has never revealed his weight, though he has described himself as "fat." If elected, he would certainly be the largest president since William Howard Taft, elected a century ago, who was said to have scaled in at upwards of 330 pounds.

One has to reach back to the likes of Grover Cleveland (first elected in 1884) and William McKinley (1896) for other similarly oversize commanders-in-chief.


The Idiot
Governor Goodhair
The Geezer
The Birther
The Pizza Delivery Guy
And now...
Governor Sandwich?

October 3rd, 2011, 01:48 PM
he is not The Birther, he is The Girther....

OK, I am done.

October 3rd, 2011, 02:00 PM
So is he.

He is a popular guy whose only purpose would be to ask the inflammatory statements that will cause a bit of commotion.

I don't know how he would be able to appeal to the entire country, he barely got NJ and he is not a very suave gentleman....

It all depends on how much people will blame Obama directly, which is like what we usually do in every election.

October 3rd, 2011, 02:01 PM
The Birther is Alan Keyes. Don't know if he's serious. I sure don't take him seriously. I believe Governor Sandwich is some sort of official nickname, but Girther works for me.

And how about that Romney. Mowing 'em down by just standing there. I haven't found a good name for him. Maybe that's why the GOP is worried about him. Nothing says charisma like a good nickname.

October 3rd, 2011, 02:43 PM
Well, now Goodhair has been linked to Niggerhead.

You can't make up this stuff.

October 3rd, 2011, 02:48 PM
I can't believe that ANY reference to "the N word" is bleeped......

Are we that sensitive that a word used in context and not as a direct appellation can't even be said on air in a news broadcast? :p

October 3rd, 2011, 03:00 PM
The Washington Post broke the Niggerhead story. In the same edition, there's an article about the Washington Redskins.

If you check maps of Jamaica Bay from c1900, one of the small islands near what is now JFK was called Nigger Point.

October 3rd, 2011, 04:13 PM
Nigger was just slang for Negro which meant "Black" or dark skinned.

It was the people that made it into an insult and it is the people that can turn it back into just another word.

I do not approve of the naming of the whateverthatplacewas, but I do not think the name of something changed a good 20 years ago is grounds to disqualify him from consideration.

Now if he was found to be a part of a hate group.....

October 3rd, 2011, 06:05 PM
Changed 20 years ago? Then why did guests see it on the rock as recently as 3 years ago?

October 3rd, 2011, 06:34 PM
Nigger was just slang for Negro which meant "Black" or dark skinned.That would be colored, or as Archie Bunker used to say, the cullids.

Nigger has been pejorative for a long time.

It was the people that made it into an insult and it is the people that can turn it back into just another word.Or they can let it drop from the lexicon.

but I do not think the name of something changed a good 20 years ago is grounds to disqualify him from consideration.So did you read the story before you posted, about the discrepancy as to when the word was removed?

The irony is that Perry has to explain this, while looming just behind it is his idea of invading Mexico (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-send-us-troops-to-mexico-to-fight-drug-wars/2011/10/01/gIQA2qDGDL_story.html).

October 4th, 2011, 09:04 AM
Yes, I read the story.

They are arguing whether it was removed in 1970 (or close to it) or in the 90's. Either way it was removed a long time ago.

Btringing up one instance that happened that long ago does not mark a man for ineligibility for PotUS....

If it were grouped with a few other things, it would make a stronger argument supporting his bias and racist background... But isn't coming from Texas enough all by itself? ;)

October 4th, 2011, 10:44 AM
But isn't coming from Texas enough all by itself? ;)So you finally got what I meant in post #112. Perry has to drag a lot of Texas baggage around the country.

Well, the Tea Bags don't trust Romney; they need a candidate.

Could Christie be a Tea Bag?

October 4th, 2011, 10:52 AM
So you finally got what I meant in post #112. Perry has to drag a lot of Texas baggage around the country.

Well, the Tea Bags don't trust Romney; they need a candidate.

Could Christie be a Tea Bag?

Apparently, they don't trust him either. I think you have to be slighty to the right of Attila the Hun to qualify for a Tea Party endorsement.


Christie Faces Conservative Criticism as He Decides on Run

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR (http://wirednewyork.com/author/michael-d-shear/)

As Chris Christie (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/christopher_j_christie/index.html?inline=nyt-per) makes up his mind about whether to run for president, he is no doubt listening to the effusive praise from donors and activists and leading Republicans.

The story those eager supporters want to tell is about a last-minute entry of the New Jersey governor into the Republican race, followed by an adoring conservative public eager to make him their nominee.

But there’s another, less welcoming narrative that is being told. And Mr. Christie, who has scheduled a news conference at 1 p.m. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/christie-to-make-1-p-m-announcement/) on Tuesday in Trenton, is no doubt listening to that one as well.

Online, conservatives are already savaging Mr. Christie for what they say are his too-liberal views on a series of critical Republican issues: guns, immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). A quick trip through the online world of conservatives suggests that Mr. Christie might face a much more daunting reception.
Here is a brief tour of some of the things that conservatives are saying about Mr. Christie:

* On Fox News Sunday over the weekend, the conservative commentator Brit Hume (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/brit_hume/index.html?inline=nyt-per) raised doubts about claims by his colleague, Bill Kristol, that Mr. Christie is a true conservative.

“With all due respect to my esteemed colleague Bill, people who are chasing after Governor Christie remind me of a pack of dogs chasing a car, and it’s not clear what they will do if they catch it,” Mr. Hume said.

* That sentiment was echoed by Ryan Rhodes, chairman of the Tea Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in Iowa. “I think there is an interesting possibility that the more people look at him, the more people will have concerns,” Mr. Rhodes said in a Reuters report in New York Metro. (http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/986210--chris-christie-if-he-runs-is-he-conservative-enough-for-tea-partiers) “A lot of people see everybody as Superman until they get in the race, and all of a sudden they are just Clark Kent.”

* At the blog ConservativeNewJersey.com (http://www.conservativenewjersey.com/), Mr. Christie does not have a lot of fans. A post last November was titled: “Chris Christie: A Conservative Myth Exposed.”

“It appears that Mr. Christie has become a ‘rock star’ whose political stock went through the roof after his debut on YouTube,” the site wrote (http://conservativenewjersey.com/chris-christie-a-conservative-myth-exposed). “Republicans and Tea Party patriots nationwide flock to him as the second coming of Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per) – a conservative crusader who took on the unions and balanced New Jersey’s budget by slashing spending and vetoing any tax increases; a tough-talking, take-charge leader who will guide the Garden State to the land of political milk and honey.”

The site continued: “We at Conservative New Jersey have observed this ‘Christiemania’ with a mixture of puzzlement, amusement and ultimately alarm because we understand New Jersey and we have carefully studied Mr. Christie’s entire political career — one characterized at the beginning by breathtaking ambition and rancorous battles with fellow Republicans.”

* And Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, appeared to be unimpressed with Mr. Christie’s speech at the Reagan library last week. That doesn’t bode well if Mr. Christie jumps into the race, hoping for the support from Mr. Limbaugh’s listeners.

“You know what Reagan’s definition of ‘compromise’ was? ‘We win; they lose,’” Limbaugh said after the speech. “I just heard way too much talk of ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘compromise’ in Governor Christie’s speech last night to make me comfortable. Obamacare, spending, debt, taxes, tell me where is the compromise with the Democrats on any of those?”

* Some conservatives seem willing to accept the possibility that Mr. Christie could represent their views. But the worry is still there.
“None of Christie’s stands is considered disqualifying for either a 2012 or 2016 run. He is still a work in progress who seems to be trending rightward,” wrote Allan H. Ryskind on the Human Events Web site (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46594br /). “But many unsold conservatives feel the governor will have to do a lot more explaining before they can get comfortably behind his candidacy.”

* And some of the most critical commentary comes from regular readers of the conservative blogs, whose messages about Mr. Christie suggest that he would have some convincing to do if he got into the race.

“I don’t trust him on the Second Amendment,” wrote one commenter with the name docpsych34, on the Human Events site (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46594br /). “I think he’s a gun-grabber. You are not a truly free person if you are not free to have the power of ‘Gun Ownership’ and the right to defend yourself.”

Another, Theresa Slater, wrote: “He seems to be MORE Democrat than Republican. I hope he doesn’t run.”

Mr. Christie’s boosters have responses to the criticism, which may prove to be successful if he runs. Some top Republican strategists believe that conservatives will essentially forgive him on many of his less conservative positions once they perceive that his toughness makes him a strong opponent for President Obama.

Mr. Christie had repeatedly said for months that he would not run, but that in recent days was reconsidering those statements. He has not yet said what he will do, though all signs point to an imminent decision. Mr. Christie knows that playing the part of the indecisive Hamlet will hurt his political career in New Jersey and threatens to upset the national leaders in his party.

But as he weighs the pros and cons, there is at least one person with relevant experience who is giving him some advice.

Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Arizona had his own long history of distrust among conservatives. His positions on immigration and torture and campaign finance reform made him a virtual pariah within parts of his own party before he ran for president.

Those concerns — especially about immigration — almost doomed his well-funded, high-expectation candidacy in the first half of 2007. And Mr. McCain continued to struggle wooing conservatives until the moment he picked Sarah Palin (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/sarah-palin?inline=nyt-per) to be his vice presidential nominee.
So Mr. McCain’s advice on Sunday may be particularly relevant for the governor of New Jersey.

“The swimming pool looks a lot better until you jump right in,” Mr. McCain warned on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/02/ftn/main20114473.shtml?tag=contentBody;cbsCarousel) “The water may not be quite as warm as you think.”

October 4th, 2011, 12:08 PM
October 4, 2011, 11:06 am

Christie Won’t Run for President, Associates Say

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER AND MICHAEL D. SHEAR (http://wirednewyork.com/author/david-m-halbfinger-and-michael-d-shear/)

11:36 a.m. | Updated Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has decided not to seek the presidency, according to two associates.
Mr. Christie is scheduled to announce his decision at a news conference in the state capital at 1 p.m. But one adviser to the governor and another person who spoke to him directly said Tuesday morning that the governor would not pursue the Republican nomination.

The decision ends a late flurry of indecision on the part of Mr. Christie, who had been encouraged by a growing number of Republican donors and activists who had hoped he would add his name to the field of candidates vying to challenge President Obama.

But Mr. Christie, who was elected governor in 2009, had long said that he did not feel ready to pursue the presidency. At one point, he joked that he would have to commit suicide to convince people he was not running.

Mr. Christie, through an associate, advised at least two top Republican Party officials in Washington on Tuesday morning of his intention not to run.

With Mr. Christie out, attention will quickly turn back to the rivalry between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry for the Republican nomination. Polls suggest that Mr. Perry’s support has dropped significantly after recent problems on the campaign trail and in debates.
Mr. Romney, meanwhile, continues to have difficulty earning the support of Tea Party advocates and other conservatives in the Republican Party.

The pressure on Mr. Christie to run reflected in part the unease among some in the Republican Party that they do not have a candidate who can beat Mr. Obama in the fall. Those urging him to run said they believed his tough-talking style and blunt approach to governing would contrast well with the president.

But Mr. Christie’s moderate views on gun control, climate change and immigration would likely have been issues for him in the primary campaign, especially in places where conservatives make up a large share of the voters.

His decision comes in the wake of a new poll showing that a broad majority of voters do not yet have an opinion of Mr. Christie. And the poll, by CBS News and conducted before Mr. Christie decided not to run, found that just one-third of Republican primary voters say they want him to throw his hat in the ring.

Seven in ten voters over all and 63 percent of voters who say they intend to vote in a Republican primary next year were either undecided or did not have an opinion of Mr. Christie, who had been flirting with a presidential run in recent weeks. Twenty-nine percent of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of Mr. Christie and just 9 percent have an unfavorable opinion.

While 32 percent of Republican primary voters would like to see Mr. Christie run for president, 38 percent say they would not, and 30 percent do not yet have an opinion.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found higher support for a Christie run at 42 percent, but the question was asked of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and not only Republican primary voters as in the CBS News poll. In the ABC News poll, 34 percent did not support his candidacy, and 24 percent had no opinion.

Jeff Zeleny, Jim Rutenberg and Megan Thee-Brenan contributed reporting.

October 4th, 2011, 12:54 PM
He wasn't running all along. The media kept doing their half-assed montage of sound-bytes and "special announcement(s) after the commercial break" to make it look like he was. They would take half of what he said at a press conference & manipulate it in such a way that anyone who didn't know better would think he was changing his mind. Nothing new as far as media is concerned. Plus, all of his cheerleaders were projecting big time.

October 4th, 2011, 02:41 PM
Christie is a non-negotiating heavyweight that is willing to balance the budget by firing 200 out of 600 cops in Patterson (safety-central!) and cutting funds to teachers while not touching anything up the line.

One who cuts public school spending and sends his kids to private school.

The guy is an arse. But he is probably not ENOUGH of an arse to satisfy the braying jackasses screaming for a "different America", whatever that amorphous definition might actually be.

October 5th, 2011, 10:46 AM
I didn't know the state of NJ directly employed Patterson's PD.

If they wanted to keep their staffing levels, they could have raised their own taxes. But, no, the towns want the state to pay for everything, so the local politiicians don't have to do anything like raising taxes or cutting services. The same with the states wanting the feds to pay for everything.

Christie is a non-negotiating heavyweight that is willing to balance the budget by firing 200 out of 600 cops in Patterson (safety-central!) and cutting funds to teachers while not touching anything up the line.

One who cuts public school spending and sends his kids to private school.

The guy is an arse. But he is probably not ENOUGH of an arse to satisfy the braying jackasses screaming for a "different America", whatever that amorphous definition might actually be.

October 5th, 2011, 11:00 AM
They did not, but where do you think the money comes from?

And do you have any clue what the taxes are in NJ already?

You are spouting nonsense BBMW. Do a little research before you dismiss another's points.

October 5th, 2011, 12:43 PM
But he is probably not ENOUGH of an arse to satisfy the braying jackasses screaming for a "different America", whatever that amorphous definition might actually be.

Oh, I don't know... I think his arse is probably plenty big enough....

October 5th, 2011, 01:42 PM


October 5th, 2011, 03:19 PM
State tax revenues are down. Local tax revenues are down. Something had to give. Too bad.

They did not, but where do you think the money comes from?

And do you have any clue what the taxes are in NJ already?

You are spouting nonsense BBMW. Do a little research before you dismiss another's points.

October 5th, 2011, 03:57 PM
Um, no.

Taking fat-cat policies like raiding the PENSION FUNDS of state employees and then never paying it back (Whitman) is not "something had to give" material.

There are many abuses, but most of it ends up being managerial, not worker based. Cutting 1/3 of your police force because your state funding went to crap and saying "well if you want more, pay for it" to a town that CAN'T AFFORD it, is just plain ignorant.

Some things just do not work that way.

October 5th, 2011, 03:59 PM
Pension bomb:


I (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/12/news/economy/benner_pension.fortune/index.htm)f our politicians cannot be trusted to handle the money WE ALREADY HAD, and then turn around to blame the rate of people retiring, then what can we do?

The key is to find SPECIFICALLY where the money went, and either plug that hole, or get it back (golden parachute, "20 year" part time employment with no obligations turning into a full pension, etc).

October 6th, 2011, 01:04 AM
Can I just say, I hate the bulbous prick. A perfect example of greedy, over indulgent people who want to cut the things that matter most to the working and middle class, while they enjoy excess by milking the system and telling lies to keep the charade going.

Why on Earth did the people of NJ elect him, I wonder.

October 6th, 2011, 10:25 AM
I hate him too, but in fairness to the people of NJ, the alternative (Corzine) and incumbent really mis-managed the state durng his tenure.

October 6th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Corzine was not all THAT bad.

But his image was way off mark. He looked like a Hoboken Yuppie. So we again voted with our eyes and not our heads (although Corzine would not have been THAT much better, all said)

October 6th, 2011, 01:59 PM
. So we again voted with our eyes and not our heads (although Corzine would not have been THAT much better, all said)

You mean Christie was better looking??

October 6th, 2011, 02:13 PM
I would say voter anger and apathy is the reason why Christie was elected as the gov. However, a lot of those same people are upset at the job that he is doing. The strange thing is Christie stated he will do these very same things, back when he was running in 09! :eek:

October 6th, 2011, 02:17 PM
You mean Christie was better looking??

He looked "less rich and tofu-eating"

October 6th, 2011, 02:30 PM
I don't think it's the same people. I think it's the people who didn't vote for him, but lost. People get upset when their sacred cows get slaughtered.

I would say voter anger and apathy is the reason why Christie was elected as the gov. However, a lot of those same people are upset at the job that he is doing. The strange thing is Christie stated he will do these very same things, back when he was running in 09! :eek:

October 6th, 2011, 02:48 PM
According to this poll http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/gov_chris_christies_approval_i.html taken in Sept, Christie has a 54% approval rating among NJ residents. Disapproval rating is 36%

I am not a fan, but you can't say he is not popular.

October 6th, 2011, 03:45 PM
He spouts BS and makes people believe he is for them.

It is easy to make 54% of the people like you so long as you are not directly effecting them or their community.

October 6th, 2011, 05:11 PM
Okay, but if that means that 54% are good with what he's doing, the other 36% are going to have to live with

October 6th, 2011, 05:31 PM

Hate to pull the Hitler on you, but that is an extreme example of where the majority liked someone and the minority got the VERY short end of the stick.

October 6th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Okay, but if that means that 54% are good with what he's doing, the other 36% are going to have to live with

Maybe, but it does not necessarily mean he is doing a good job, or that the numbers are sustainable.

October 7th, 2011, 12:35 PM
People "liked" it when Whitmann sold out the pension funds to lower taxes.

They don't like it now when the pensioners want their money. Unfortunately they are blaming THEM and notthose that stole the money from them in the first place...

October 7th, 2011, 12:53 PM
You may very well be right, but was it ever really their money. It was a promise to pay them. They're different things. Decades ago, the politicians learned that they could buy current votes with future dollars. They also knew that it wouldn't be their problem to come up with the dollars.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and there's no money to pay them. Is it fair? Probably not. Was it forseeable? Yes. Are the current voters going to take money out of their pockets to pay the pensioners? Well, in Christy you have your answer.

People "liked" it when Whitmann sold out the pension funds to lower taxes.

They don't like it now when the pensioners want their money. Unfortunately they are blaming THEM and notthose that stole the money from them in the first place...

October 7th, 2011, 03:48 PM
Actually, it was their money. They put it into the fund, and part of it was matched, just like as with an employer, by the state(I will have to get the numbers).

And they were not promising "future dollars", this was a plan and a fund. It had backing, much like many others (SS comes to mind), but seeing that much money sitting around doing "nothing" was too much for many politicians, so they broke in and "spread the wealth" confident that inflation and other measures would somehow refill the coffers.

Didn't happen. No fairy dust available.

As for current voters, voters can't vote on specific decisions like that or, bet your money, the teachers, cops, and other city workers would have come out in force to vote for returning what was their paid and due.

The only problem with direct voting being is that true Democracy is a sham. It only makes it so that 51% of the people can F the other 49%. (Or, in our current situation, 5% on the 95%... weird how money works...)

October 9th, 2011, 11:18 AM

Ron Paul Wins Values Voter Summit Straw Poll

TALKING POINTS MEMO (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/ron-paul-wins-values-voter-summit-straw-poll.php?ref=fpblg)

Some Comments regarding Ron Paul's worship of Anti-Regulation:

"The prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer." - Ron Paul

Followed by:

Hey pal, go move to Somalia, there is 100% free market. No government regulation at all.

Problem is you cowards can not survive in a free market so you want to leech off the work of the masses in America, who provide the security you afford while sitting in your basement writing bullshit on the Internet without armed thugs stealing everything you own.

Problem with cowards like you is you could not survive in a free market but you throw around big ideas you do not even comprehend and wish to subvert the very liberties afforded to you by the Constitution in a shallow childish attempt to prevent your fellow American a chance to compete for the American dream, and you wish to limit those around you because you are afraid to compete with them, because you are in fact attempting to protect your own laziness, insecurities and failures as a human being.

October 9th, 2011, 11:32 AM
And, as is to be expected, there's this from the ever-hopeful Rick "Pass the Soap" Santorum ...

Rick Santorum Bemoans Gay Soldiers Who 'Shower With People'

HUFFINGTON POST (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/rick-santorum-gay-soldiers-shower-dadt_n_1002244.html)

... "The problem is that sexual activity with people who you are in close quarters with who happen to be of the same sex is different than being open about your sexuality," Santorum said on "Fox News Sunday."

Fox host Chris Wallace pushed back, asking Santorum if he was suggesting gay soldiers would "go after" their colleagues.

"They're in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people," Santorum said, saying the presence of gay soldiers could have an adverse "effect on retention and recruitment." ...


One Commenter offers this ...

As a veteran, I can honestly say that Rick stresses out more over this subject than anyone in the service ever has. It isn't the issue these clowns make it out to be.

Another Google-savvy commenter, this ...

As a one trick pony, Mr "Brown-fro*th" has to stay with what he knows. Unfortunat*ely for him, what he knows is not supported by anyone with a minimal amount of common sense. Fortunatel*y for us, he is as irrelevant as donald trump.


Weird how WNY inserts that "*" in the middle of froth :confused: (which doesn't appear at the source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FeloniousBush/rick-santorum-gay-soldiers-shower-dadt_n_1002244_112153992.html))

October 9th, 2011, 12:07 PM
Rick Santorum didn't serve in the military; he doesn't know what he's talking about.

October 10th, 2011, 12:06 PM
Santorum is a douche bag.

October 10th, 2011, 12:29 PM
No he's actually The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. ;) :D

October 11th, 2011, 05:59 AM
Weird how WNY inserts that "*" in the middle of froth :confused: (which doesn't appear at the source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FeloniousBush/rick-santorum-gay-soldiers-shower-dadt_n_1002244_112153992.html))

Not just in froth. Anti-plagiarism device? Seen it before (and edited out the offending intruders).

October 11th, 2011, 10:25 AM
No he's actually The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. ;) :D

*dies of complete laughter*

In other news, though:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/thecaucus/thecaucus_post.png (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/)

October 11, 2011, 7:14 am Five Things to Watch for in the G.O.P. Debate By MICHAEL D. SHEAR (http://wirednewyork.com/author/michael-d-shear/)

Steven Senne/Associated PressMitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, during a campaign stop on Monday at Hopkinton Town Hall in Hopkinton, N.H.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Mitt Romney (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/mitt-romney?inline=nyt-per) enters the Republican presidential debate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/presidential_debates/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) on Tuesday as the likeliest target of questions and criticism from rivals eager to slow the building sense of momentum behind his campaign.

The dynamics of the race have shifted considerably since the last debate, just three weeks ago.
Until then, Mr. Romney largely managed to float above the fray during the televised debates. And when he did engage — as he did during the last debate with Rick Perry (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/rick-perry?inline=nyt-per), the Texas governor — Mr. Romney won most of those encounters.

Mr. Perry, who was then leading the other Republican candidates in the polls, was the focus of attention during the last several debates. But his stumbling performances during those contests and other stories in the news media have blunted the Texas governor’s fast start. In the last several polls, Mr. Romney has retaken the lead in the Republican primary.
But with Mr. Romney’s lead comes new and sometimes unwanted attention and scrutiny.
That was made clear over the weekend as Mr. Romney’s critics renewed their assault on the former Massachusetts governor’s stance on social issues. And several of the Republican candidates dodged questions about the relevance of Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith, after a prominent pastor referred to the Mormon Church as a cult (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/us/politics/prominent-pastor-calls-romneys-church-a-cult.html) and said that Mr. Romney was not a Christian.

The event on Tuesday night will be the first time the candidates have debated sitting down — perhaps an effort by the sponsors to encourage a serious discussion. They will be seated according to poll results, and that means Mr. Romney and Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather Pizza, will be seated next to each other.
The candidates have also been told they will be able to ask each other questions, and that the order will go alphabetically, with Mrs. Bachmann starting. That means several of the candidates will get a chance for questions before Mr. Romney or Mr. Perry, who will come near the end.
Here are five things to watch for on Tuesday night:

1. The Mormon question. Mr. Romney may get a break on this given the stated purpose of the debate, sponsored by Bloomberg News and the Washington Post. The debate is supposed to be focused entirely on economics.
That suggests none of the questions being prepared by the news organizations will be about Mr. Romney’s faith. But debates are extremely unpredictable. It is not impossible to imagine another candidate raising the issue in an oblique way.

It is also possible that one of the moderators might see fit to ask one of Mr. Romney’s rivals whether they think a discussion about Mormonism distracts from the important, economic issues that the country faces.
If the issue of his faith does come up, look for Mr. Romney to try and deflect it quickly — his advisers say he has addressed the issue and wants to move on. One person likely to be outspoken in a discussion of Mr. Romney’s faith is Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and a fellow Mormon. He called the whole issue a “sideshow” on Monday.

2. Romney, the piñata. If Mr. Romney is able to escape a discussion of his faith, he is not likely to be so lucky on other issues, in particular health care.
Mr. Perry and the other candidates know there is a danger that Republicans will start coalescing around the former Massachusetts governor if they judge him to be the most likely to win in a race against Mr. Obama.
So they have begun attacking his credentials as a conservative, reviving the critique that Mr. Romney has changed positions frequently and is not authentic in his beliefs.

Mr. Perry introduced a brutal Web video on Monday showing President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) looking in the mirror and seeing Mr. Romney’s reflection. Michele Bachmann (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/michele-bachmann?inline=nyt-per) swiped at Mr. Romney last week, urging voters in Iowa not to “settle” for someone who is not a true conservative.
But nowhere is the attack more likely than on health care, as Mr. Perry’s video showed. And health care in America is a legitimate economic issue that moderators of the debate are sure to address.

3. Battle of the executives. Among the more interesting dynamics to watch on Tuesday may be the interplay between Mr. Romney and Herman Cain (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/herman-cain?inline=nyt-per), a former chief executive of Godfather Pizza. Mr. Cain has surged in the polls recently, taking second place in several surveys.
Asked about Mr. Cain’s appeal during a town hall meeting on Monday evening, Mr. Romney said he thought it was the fact that both men have spent time outside of government, in business.

Mr. Romney is not likely to lash out at Mr. Cain during the debate. Despite Mr. Cain’s recent popularity, Mr. Romney’s advisers do not see him as a long-term threat to winning the nomination.
But Mr. Cain has proven himself to be a formidable presence in speeches to conservative activists. And he is not unwilling to be blunt in his criticism of Mr. Romney or his other rivals. It is possible that Mr. Cain, sensing an opportunity in the moment, could pile on Mr. Romney.

4. Perry, race and expectations. One candidate who is likely to benefit from the economic focus of the debate is Mr. Perry, at least when it comes to the race issue.
Since the last debate, a Washington Post story about a hunting camp where Mr. Perry hosted guests that had a racial epithet painted on a rock at its entrance has forced Mr. Perry’s campaign off message. In a normal debate, it would an obvious topic to ask him to address.
It is possible, as with Mr. Romney’s religion, that another candidate will ask Mr. Perry about the hunting camp. If so, Mr. Perry will most likely try to use the national platform to offer the explanations his campaign has given in the past — that the rock was painted over before he started going there.

But even if he does escape questions about race or the hunting camp, Mr. Perry still may not be out of the woods. In the last three debates, he got dismal reviews for appearing unprepared on several crucial issues and losing his focus. His campaign has said that this time he is devoting more time to preparation and trying to get more sleep.
Economic focus or not, the moderators and the other Republican campaigns are sure to try to test Mr. Perry to see whether he turns in a better performance, substantively and stylistically.
If he does, it may help turn around his campaign. If he has another bad night, it could further set back his fund-raising and his efforts to woo activists and establishment Republicans to his campaign.

5. Jobs and Mr. Obama. The economy should be the star of the show on Tuesday night, however, and that is likely to provide plenty of opportunity for all of the Republican candidates to criticize Mr. Obama.
In town hall meetings in New Hampshire on Monday, Mr. Romney continued to call Mr. Obama a “failed” president and accused him of not understanding how the economy worked. Expect him to do more of the same.

Mr. Perry has repeatedly suggested that his experience as governor of Texas for a decade gives him unique qualifications to help the economy. And he has criticized Mr. Obama’s policies as wrongheaded and ineffective.
Mrs. Bachmann is likely to be joined by the others on the stage — Ron Paul (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/ron-paul?inline=nyt-per), Newt Gingrich (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/newt-gingrich?inline=nyt-per), and Rick Santorum (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/rick-santorum?inline=nyt-per) — in assailing Mr. Obama’s administration for actions they say have hurt the country’s economic chances.

Those include the bank bailouts, the stimulus program, the health care reform (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) effort, the Dodd-Frank efforts to regulate the banking industry and environmental regulations. Expect all of them to come up during the debate.
The question remains, however, whether any of the candidates will find the right recipe for criticizing the president and knocking their Republican rivals at the same time.
If they do, it is sure to be memorable.

E-mail This (http://javascript<strong></strong>:NYTD.Blogs.email_this('172065', 'http%3A%2F%2Fthecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2011%2 F10%2F11%2Ffive-things-to-watch-for-in-g-o-p-debate%2F');)
Print (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/five-things-to-watch-for-in-g-o-p-debate/?pagemode=print)
Share Close


Elections (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/elections/), The 44th President (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-44th-president/), The Caucus (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the_caucus/), The White House (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-new-team/), debates (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/debates/), mitt romney (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/mitt-romney/), New Hampshire (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/new-hampshire/)

October 11th, 2011, 10:49 AM
I think rick Perry is toast.

I don't know about this Herman Cain guy, but his mouth seems ready to accept his foot. It could happen any time.

And this stuff about Romney and his Mormon faith highlights how the Tea Bags were, right from the start, highjacked by social conservatives. Any tax reform issues have been lost in the culture wars.

So it's not enough to know how a candidate's religious views would impact his administration. It's not even enough that a candidate be Christian. Now he has to be a "real" Christian. Mormons need not apply.

We're back to JFK, when maybe Catholics weren't real Christians.

October 11th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Despite the fact that the Tea Party movement was supposed to be about fiscal conservatism and small government, we see them focusing more and more on social issues. Gays In the miltary, death penalty, defense against the marriage act,abortion. What a bunch of hypocrites.

October 12th, 2011, 08:59 AM
Nah, they aren't hypocrites, they are just a BUNCH of people with only one common thread amongst them.

The limiting of government in anything that has direct association to their own personal lives.

So that works great so long as you keep it very general. "We don't want government controlling our lives!!!".

But once you start asking specifics, you find that a lot od what some want is not what others want. Such is the case with all political movements in this day and age. Trying to boil down every political faction into two or three distinct groups is a logistical nightmare and a practical impossibility. In order to do so you either keep things so vague that nobody really gets anything or you simple throw money at everyone and worry about how you are going to fund it later.

October 12th, 2011, 09:19 AM
I agree with eddhead, at least if he's referring to what the Tea Party has quickly become. I said in an earlier post that the conservative side of the GOP took over the movement. It's not a bunch of anything anymore; it's a vehicle to get people elected. And the easiest way (you don't have to suggest difficult solutions) is to use social issues. You don't like these people; okay, we'll marginalize them. Ironically, this means an even more intrusive government.

For their part, the Democrats now want to own #OWS, and right now, they don't want to be owned.

October 12th, 2011, 09:48 AM
Nah, they aren't hypocrites, they are just a BUNCH of people with only one common thread amongst them.

The limiting of government in anything that has direct association to their own personal lives.

So that works great so long as you keep it very general. "We don't want government controlling our lives!!!".

But once you start asking specifics, you find that a lot od what some want is not what others want. Such is the case with all political movements in this day and age. Trying to boil down every political faction into two or three distinct groups is a logistical nightmare and a practical impossibility. In order to do so you either keep things so vague that nobody really gets anything or you simple throw money at everyone and worry about how you are going to fund it later.

How is the concept " We don't want government controlling our lives" and "we want limited government" consistent with the notion of government controlling a woman's body (abortion) or a government controlling a person's sexual orientation?


For their part, the Democrats now want to own #OWS, and right now, they don't want to be owned.

That was what the tea party was supposed to be like. The #OWS is pissed at everybody and rightfully so.

October 12th, 2011, 11:16 AM
Edd, not everyone on there is pro or anti abortion.

What i am saying is that more than being two-faced, they are many-faced and many-headed. When they were one group simply saying "NO GOVERNMENT" it was easy for everyone to get together and rally, but the more I heard from this movement, the more I knew it would not last.

It is one thing to be a diverse group in support of something (even many things). But a diverse group that is against many things will eventually break apart on its own and return to the factions they came from.

October 12th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Edd, not everyone on there is pro or anti abortion.

What i am saying is that more than being two-faced, they are many-faced and many-headed. When they were one group simply saying "NO GOVERNMENT" it was easy for everyone to get together and rally, but the more I heard from this movement, the more I knew it would not last.

It is one thing to be a diverse group in support of something (even many things). But a diverse group that is against many things will eventually break apart on its own and return to the factions they came from.

I don't agree with your first statement. True, the teaparty began as a party agnostic movement focused on small government and fiscal conservatism, but as it has picked up speed, it has morphed into something completely different. The overwhelming majority of teaparty supporters are now social conservatives; yo do not see too many of them showing up at Democratic events the way they do at GOP debates. Look at how they applauded the death penalty, and booed the Gay solider at the tea party sponsered debate. And Abortion is becoming a litmus test for them.

This is not how they started out. Initially the movment was socially and politically agnostic, and focused wholly on fiscal issues. Now, they have taken on core social republican values and are now no different than the hard right of the Limbauch sect.

October 12th, 2011, 12:54 PM
The overwhelming supporters of what is NOW called the Teaparty is no longer the Teaparty.

What something is called is sometimes no longer representative of what it is. (as pointed out in your P2...)

October 13th, 2011, 05:39 PM
Why the Tea Party Failed to Produce a Credible Candidate

By Conor Friedersdorf

The movement got drunk on bombast, and now its favored 2012 contenders
have fallen by the wayside, leaving Mitt Romney as a likely nominee

Writing on his eponymous website, David Frum reacted to Tuesday's GOP debate and Mitt Romney's front-runner status by asking, "Who produces the first big analysis: Why the Tea Party could not produce a credible presidential candidate?" I'll bite. Every political movement is a marriage of beliefs and rhetoric, combining convictions about where the country should be going and judgments about the best way to get there. Potential supporters assess the whole package.

The tea party's beliefs and convictions about where the country should be going, or the best version of them, are popular enough to produce a viable candidate, especially in a GOP primary. He or she would insist that the federal government spends too much, that bureaucrats shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy, and that federalizing the health care system is unlikely to reduce overall costs.

A viable tea party agenda would also appeal to the libertarian wing of the party, which is suspicious of interventionism, ever-expanding military spending, and the criminalization of everything from marijuana to not having health insurance. And it would pointedly highlight the damage done by Democratic Party donors, especially Wall-Street beneficiaries of government largess, public employee unions, and trial lawyers, all of whom use their clout to capture taxpayer money.

So how to produce a candidate? A savvy tea party would assess politicians with resumes sufficient to become president, court and flatter known quantities like Mitch Daniels, who would fundraise well be acceptable to other constituencies in the Republican Party, and work to ensure that the longshots it elevated were principled guys like Gary Johnson, who've proven their ability to govern should they improbably catch fire in the course of campaigning around the nation.

But the actual tea party isn't savvy. It overestimates its clout within the GOP, fails to appreciate the many obstacles to winning a general election, let alone implementing its agenda, and is therefore careless and immature in choosing its champions. It elevates polarizing figures of questionable competence like Sarah Palin because doing so is cathartic. It backed Michele Bachmann despite her thin resume, erratic behavior in interviews, and the fact that she cares most about advancing a socially conservative agenda, not a small-government agenda. Its erstwhile favorite, Rick Perry, doesn't even subscribe to what ought to be a core tea party tenet: that the government shouldn't subsidize particular firms, picking winners and losers. Perry is a right-wing corporatist. And Herman Cain, the front-runner of the week? He has zero governing experience, acknowledges that he knows next to nothing about foreign policy, flip flops on matters of tremendous consequence, and touts a flawed economic plan, 9-9-9, that could never pass.

What do all these dubious champions have in common? Their red meat rhetoric and ability to antagonize liberals. What many tea partiers share is a belief that the best way to get where the country should be going is by being more ruthless than the Democrats; by fighting them zealously in the media, zinging them from the stump, and never, ever compromising with them in Congress or at the White House negotiating table. This is partly a reaction to George W. Bush's tenure, when tea partiers believe they were sold out by a big-spending, big-government RINO who kept compromising with Ted Kennedy. It is partly a reaction to the perception that they tried nominating media darling and "maverick" John McCain in 2008, and he lost. It is partly a reaction to the belief, stoked by talk radio, that every compromise with liberals is just one more ratchet in the direction of socialism, and that a confident, uncompromising conservative, in what they imagine to be the model of Ronald Reagan, is the solution to their woes.

Their approach has several flaws.

1) Bombast isn't a predictor of fealty to principle. It's just strategically uttered rhetoric, like everything else said by politicians, a profession where what is promised on the campaign trail always deviates from what is done in office. How odd that the most cynical voters are most taken by extravagant promises of loyalty.

2) When primary candidates compete to be the most bombastic and uncompromising in their rhetoric, the most successful quickly start to look unelectable, and the average Republican primary voter wants most of all to beat President Obama in 2012. Thus the winner of the "conservative primary" loses the Republican primary, in much the same way that Howard Dean lost to John Kerry during the 2004 cycle.

3) Some candidates who lack bombast, like Jon Huntsman or Daniels, would be more effective than any tea-party champion at advancing the movement's agenda, but they're overlooked because they fail to excite. It's absurd. Their records as successful governors are concrete demonstrations that they govern in a reliably conservative manner and can win converts. It is irrational to mistrust the rhetoric of politicians even while preferring someone like Cain, whose lack of experience forces supporters into the position of trusting his rhetoric without any basis for doing so save their gut feelings (which have done nothing but caused them to feel betrayed by pols in the past).

Why couldn't the tea party produce a viable candidate? Its partisans put fiery rhetoric ahead of substance, judged GOP politicians based on the extravagance of their promises more than what they'd actually accomplished, failed to demand of its champions some baseline level of competence, and insisted on pols who deliberately piss off outsiders rather than Reaganesque communicators intent on converting them. Tea partiers got drunk off the pleasure of hearing their prejudices echoed. They're now waking up to face their hangover. And his name is Mitt Romney.

Copyright © 2011 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

October 17th, 2011, 10:58 AM
October 16, 2011

Big Cash Edge Powers Obama in Drive for ’12

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicholas_confessore/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and GRIFF PALMER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/griff_palmer/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is exploiting his early lead in campaign fund-raising to bankroll a sprawling grass-roots organization and information technology apparatus in critical general election battlegrounds. He is doing so even as the Republican candidates conserve cash and jockey for position in what could become a drawn-out nominating battle.

Since the beginning of the year, Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_national_committee/index.html?inline=nyt-org), for which the president is helping raise money to finance his party’s grass-roots efforts, have spent close to $87 million in operating costs, according to a New York Times analysis of campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_election_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org). That amount is about as much as all the current Republican candidates together have raised so far in this campaign.

In recent months, that money has helped open campaign offices in at least 15 states. In contrast, the best-financed Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, have physical presences in just a handful of early primary states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

In just the last three months, according to the filings, the Obama campaign has spent more on payroll, more than $4 million, than several of the Republican candidates have raised.

The president is already paying staff employees in at least 38 states, including Wisconsin, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico and North Carolina. His Chicago campaign headquarters hums with more than 200 paid aides.

And Mr. Obama has spent millions of dollars investing in social media and information technology, applying both savvy and brute technological force to raising small-dollar donations, firing up volunteers and building a technical infrastructure to sustain his re-election campaign for the next year.

The gap in spending underscores facts easily lost amid the president’s low approval ratings, his challenges in winning over independent voters and the gridlock he faces in Washington: Mr. Obama brings unmatched financial resources to the campaign trail, and a team with a well-honed sense of where and how to deploy money, people and technology.

“In the past three months, we’ve grown our organizing staff by 50 percent and opened up three new field offices every week,” Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, wrote in an e-mail to supporters on Thursday. “Thousands of volunteers and organizers made 3 million phone calls and in-person visits to voters.”

Mr. Obama’s advantages are partly circumstantial: With no primary opponent, Mr. Obama, like other incumbent presidents before him, can begin preparing for a general election contest that is still more than a year away.

He can also raise large contributions for the Democratic National Committee — topping out at $30,800 per donor rather than the $5,000 limit on contributions to candidates — that are helping finance the party’s broader efforts to help Democrats up and down the ballot. During the last three months, the committee has already transferred funds totaling more than $1.3 million to Democratic organizations in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to the party’s filings.

Though the Republican National Committee has enjoyed strong fund-raising in recent months, it is also still paying down large debts incurred during the 2008 cycle. At the end of September, the committee was still $14.5 million in debt, according to campaign reports.
That gap explains, in part, why Republican-oriented independent groups like American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity are devising plans to spend millions of dollars this year on social media and voter-identification efforts, with a major focus on helping the eventual Republican candidate win the White House.

Mr. Perry and Mr. Romney, as well as Mr. Obama, are also backed by “super PACs” founded by each candidate’s allies and former aides. Such groups can raise unlimited contributions and are required to disclose their expenditures much less frequently than the campaigns or party committees, creating some uncertainty in assessing how the fund-raising wars will ultimately aid one candidate or another.
Mr. Obama has used his growing field operation as a selling point with large donors in a fund-raising initiative called “Strong Start.” The program shares with supporters the campaign’s estimated costs for organizers, offices and campaign supplies in 12 states and regions, and invites them to underwrite the costs with a donation.

“We need to Start Strong now, we would like each N.F.C. member’s help to get this off the ground and take ownership of this quarter’s field offices,” Kevin Karlsgodt, Mr. Obama’s deputy finance chief of staff, wrote in an e-mail to top Democratic donors on the party’s national finance council early this month. “Get friends to chip in a week or two, and we’ll be there in no time.”

In just one example of the campaign’s financial clout, in the last three months, Mr. Obama has spent more than $2 million on online advertising and half a million dollars on computer equipment and software. His bill for Web hosting was $360,000, more cash than each of the Republican candidates Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jon M. Huntsman Jr. had in their bank accounts at the end of the quarter.

The filings also reveal where the Republican candidates are investing some of their time and money. According to his campaign filings, Mr. Romney, who spent big in Iowa in 2008 but has suggested he would not compete aggressively in the state this year, has doubled his campaign staff there, to four from two. He has also spent about $160,000 in the state this year, including some direct mailings.
Mr. Perry, who entered the campaign midway through the third quarter, has spent about $58,000 in Iowa, though the state is regarded as an important proving ground for his candidacy.

Several of the Republican candidates are spending relatively heavily in New Hampshire, which traditionally hosts the country’s first primary. Excluding consulting costs, Mr. Huntsman has spent the largest amount, about $397,000, in the state, followed by Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who has spent about $278,000, and Mr. Romney, who has spent $184,000, according to an analysis of campaign filings.

October 17th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Money elects people.

October 17th, 2011, 12:01 PM
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
A quote which is attributed in variation to Mark Twain, Kurt Tucholsky or Winston Churchill.
In spite of this i'll predict the reelection of Obama!
and he will have to thank exactly those people who want to get rid of him the most!
He will be reelected by default of a better alternative!
And the reason for the lack of a better alternative is the tea party it self!
Better, the gap between the republican establishment and the tea party base!
And for this we have to thank Bush/Cheny! :D
But keep in mind : "Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge. "
--Lao Tzu :rolleyes:

October 17th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Can you use exclamation points more!

October 17th, 2011, 01:02 PM
almost not possible ... but i am working on it;)
I could use two or three at a time ... like this !!!
Or i could use them to separate phrases
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
like this.
But your right ... i will try to quit using them too extensively.

October 19th, 2011, 08:35 AM
Rick Perry Comes to Life,
and He Really Doesn't Like Mitt Romney

By Molly Ball

After Tuesday night's brutal Republican debate in Las Vegas, the candidates could use a break from each other


LAS VEGAS -- The CNN-sponsored GOP primary debate here was a free-for-all that left no doubt about Mitt Romney's role as the lone front-runner. But it also revealed his weaknesses in unprecedented fashion. Seven takeaways from a Vegas fight night:

1. Rick Perry has awakened...and it's personal. The Texas governor, so somnolent in his first four debates, came to life Tuesday -- and he got under Mitt Romney's skin. In a clip we'll be seeing over and over for the next few days, Perry turned to Romney and said, "Mitt, you lose all of your standing, from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy."

Romney shook his head and laughed heartily. As he started to defend himself -- "I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life" -- Perry cut in to contradict him, and that's when Romney got testy, refusing to let Perry interrupt and demanding over and over, "I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm speaking. ... Are you just going to keep talking?"

It was a moment that epitomized the debate: The suddenly feisty Perry; the piling on Romney, whose strong debate performances have only sharpened his rivals' desire to draw blood; the candidates' descent into childish, me-first squabbling; and Romney's patience wearing thin, to potentially damaging effect.

Perry succeeded in baiting Romney, but did he dynamite himself in the process? The audience, which seemed to be a pro-Romney crowd, booed Perry's attacks more than once. Perry had finally stirred ... but he looked mean. His answers were plagued by perplexing pauses, where he seemed to struggle to come up with concepts as central as the 10th Amendment. He put himself back in the fight but continued to give garbled answers to many questions.

2. Mitt Romney is no shrinking violet. Romney was under attack almost constantly, and he gave as good as he got. He did not, however, succeed in rising above it all -- in fact, he lost his cool in a major way, bickering twice with Perry, once with Rick Santorum, and once with Newt Gingrich over his right to his allotted speaking time. Santorum, the reliable attack dog, succeeded in flustering Romney on health care -- the former Massachusetts governor's biggest vulnerability in the GOP primary, yet a subject his rivals have struggled to dent him on. There's a fine line between showing you've got some fight in you and getting snippy, and Romney seemed to cross it.

Perhaps particularly damaging for a candidate whose chief personal liability is the perception he's a political shape-shifter was this explanation for the illegal immigrants found to be working on his lawn: "We went to the company and we said, 'Look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals.'"

And yet, at the end of the night, there was no question who the front-runner was, and that he stands in a tier by himself, with no opponent of equal stature. Romney came well prepared -- this was his 20th presidential debate stretching back to 2007, and all that practice has clearly helped. He effectively demolished Herman Cain's nonsensical contention that state and federal sales taxes are "apples and oranges," saying, "Fine, and I'm going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it, because I've got to pay both taxes." He brought up energy policy before Perry could take ownership of it, and when Perry picked up the thread, he turned it around, implying the Texan was forgetting about manufacturing. He frequently sought to broaden the frame to the American people who are hurting, et cetera, et cetera. And he didn't let Perry get away with trying to simultaneously claim that illegal immigration is a massive problem the government needs to address -- and a problem he's effectively tackled as the get-tough governor of a border state. If Romney got dragged into the mud, he made sure nobody else walked out clean.

3. Herman Cain can't laugh off everything. The first segment of the debate was devoted to a round-robin bash-fest of Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan, and Cain's glib denials that it would have the effects independent experts contend -- like raising taxes on a lot of people, chiefly those who can least afford it -- finally started to fall flat. After that, Cain abruptly ceased to be a focal point as the debate's center of gravity shifted to Romney.

The last portion of the debate was much worse for Cain as the topic switched to his weakest subject, foreign policy. He got badly tangled up in the question of whether he would negotiate with al-Qaeda for the release of prisoners from Guantanamo, trying to avoid backing down from previously saying that he would while also categorically stating he wouldn't ever negotiate with terrorists. "I would never agree to letting hostages in Guantanamo Bay go," he stumbled at one point. (After the debate, he told reporters he'd misspoken -- obviously.) Michele Bachmann called him "naive."

Despite Cain's technical claim to front-runner status -- every poll in the last week or so has shown him statistically tying or surpassing Romney -- it's clear his rivals don't believe he has the staying power to make him worth really working to tear down. They're pretty sure he can do that on his own.

4. Everybody's a little punch-drunk at this point. This debate was the most contentious we've seen yet, a melee of shocking nastiness and rancor. Some in the GOP fretted that the ultimate effect would be to damage the party as a whole as the candidates seemed to tear each other apart at the expense of their ultimate goal -- beating President Obama in the general election. Several speculated that Jon Huntsman, who opted out of the debate in a show of solidarity with New Hampshire, might have come out of the night the best of anyone.

These candidates have met for five debates in six weeks. It's probably a good thing that they'll be spending the next three weeks apart. We could all use a break.

5. There's life in the old Newt yet. Gingrich's shtick in these debates has been predictable: go after the moderators and the media and position himself as the uniter in a divisive world. (It helps that few have bothered to attack him.) Nonetheless, it's working for him, and Gingrich seemed to get the most airtime of the candidates not named Romney, Perry or Cain. He hit it out of the park with his answer to a question about how Republicans can appeal to Latino voters: "I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background that we want to make America work again."

Gingrich may have lost some local support, however, when he came out in favor of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which would store the nation's spent nuclear material less than 100 miles outside Las Vegas. That might not be a deal-breaker with Nevada voters primarily concerned about the economy -- John McCain supported Yucca and so did George W. Bush before him. But it won't help.

6. Ron Paul can't stop being Ron Paul. His increasingly professionalized campaign is working to shoehorn the eccentric Paul into a conventional Republican mold -- running ads in Iowa selling him as the candidate of family values, for example. But Paul continues to show, over and over again, that he cannot be tamed or tempered. He said repealing Obamacare wasn't enough and that Medicare, Medicaid and the prescription drug benefit should also come up for reconsideration. He didn't just affirm he favors yanking aid from Israel, he contended U.S. aid is hurting Israel. He brought up Iran-Contra, defaming the memory of the sainted Ronald Reagan, and he stuck up for the rights of Guantanamo prisoners, saying, "They're all suspects. They're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them."

For the many Paul fans who admire his steadfast convictions, his defense of civil liberties and his staunch consistency, all these statements are cause for celebration. They're also the reason his effort to broaden his appeal to the wider Republican electorate is doomed to fail.

7. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum aren't ready to fade away. Bachmann made a strongly emotional, gender-based appeal: "I'm talking to moms across this country. ... There are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can't keep that house." It was a startlingly retrograde gender-role prism for someone trying to be the first woman president, but also a sign that Bachmann, who has historically shied away from identity politics, believes she could squeeze some mileage out of playing the gender card. Santorum, for his part, continues to play the exasperated but effective debater, at one point shouting at Romney: "You're out of time! You're out of time!" He often scores points, but rarely comes out of these exchanges looking good.

Bachmann, Santorum and Gingrich have absorbed a lesson from the Cain surge: It can happen to anyone. You just have to stay in the game and wait for the moment to find you.

Image credit: Reuters/Steve Marcus

Copyright © 2011 by The Atlantic Monthly Group


October 19th, 2011, 10:29 AM
I hope this continues.

It shows how the candidates stand, but also that there ARE major fissures in the party that are only now coming to sunlight.

October 19th, 2011, 01:01 PM
The hard core conservatives don't want to have anything to do with Romney. They see him as another McCain.

October 19th, 2011, 01:34 PM
Hard core conservatives are also unrealistic.

You need to compromise if you want a leader that will represent the majority, not the idealistic minority. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has kinda forgotten that.

(Remember when Bush Jr first ran? It was hard to tell the difference between Bush and Gore. Both were different shades of vanilla)

October 21st, 2011, 12:55 PM
Report: Bachmann's New Hampshire staff resigns en masse

THE HILL (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/189057-bachmanns-new-hampshire-staff-quits)
By Daniel Strauss
10/21/11 11:35 AM ET

The paid New Hampshire staff for Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) presidential campaign have all quit.

Jeff Chidester, Nicole Yurek, Matthew LeDuc, Caroline Gigler, and Tom Lukacz have all quit the campaign, according to New Hampshire's WMUR.

The staff members all stressed that their departures weren't because of any lack of support for Bachmann. They said, instead, that their reason for quitting was because of the campaign's apparent lack of focus on the New Hampshire primary ...

October 21st, 2011, 02:46 PM
"Its not like we don't support her, we just aren't going to support her"

October 21st, 2011, 02:59 PM

October 21st, 2011, 03:03 PM
No corndogs in NH.

Maybe Bachmann can do something with a moose.

October 21st, 2011, 05:20 PM
I am not touching that one.

October 21st, 2011, 07:39 PM
Something else for the Repugs to mope about ...

Good evening,

I'm writing to tell you that all US troops will return home from Iraq by the end of December. After nearly nine years, the American war in Iraq will end. Our servicemen and women will be with their families for the holidays.

The war in Iraq came with tremendous cost. More than a million Americans served in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 gave their lives in service to the rest of us. Today, as always, we honor these patriots.

When I came into office, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. As Commander in Chief, I ended our combat mission last year and pledged to keep our commitment to remove all our troops by the end of 2011. To date, we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops from Iraq.

This is a significant moment in our history. For more information, including video, please visit WhiteHouse.gov/BringingTroopsHome (http://links.whitehouse.gov/track?type=click&enid=bWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTExMDIxLjM1NDQ1MzEmbWVzc2FnZ WlkPU1EQi1QUkQtQlVMLTIwMTExMDIxLjM1NDQ1MzEmZGF0YWJ hc2VpZD0xMDAxJnNlcmlhbD0xMjc2NjgyNzIzJmVtYWlsaWQ9c GQ1NDhAbnljLnJyLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9cGQ1NDhAbnljLnJyLmN vbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2YXJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&100&&&http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/president-obama-has-ended-war-iraq?utm_source=email127&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=iraqend).

The end of the war in Iraq reflects a larger trend. The wars of the past decade are drawing to a close.

As we have removed troops from Iraq, we have refocused our fight against al Qaeda and secured major victories in taking out its leadership–including Osama bin Laden. And we’ve begun a transition in Afghanistan.

On the first day of my Administration, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and we’ll continue to draw it down.

As we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll enlist their talents in meeting our greatest challenges as a nation—restoring our economic strength at home. Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build is our own.

Today the United States moves forward, from a position of strength.

Thank you,
President Barack Obama

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

October 22nd, 2011, 06:42 PM
The hard core conservatives don't want to have anything to do with Romney. They see him as another McCain.

Well, after some more of this nonsense where they flirt with all of the other wacky candidates, none of whom are electable, they will have to get used to him. Unless someone finds pictures of him having relations with farm animals or something, Romney will be the GOP nominee, simply because the others all have major liabilities. So the the "hard core conservatives" (I guess that means the social conservatives) are going to either have to decide they are OK with Romney, or accept another 4 years of Obama as president. I suspect, given their opposition to Obama, most of them will come around and decide they are OK with Romney. But right now, they are hoping someone else emerges. Given that the field is complete at this point, I don't think any of the other candidates would have a chance of winning in the general -- IMO.

October 23rd, 2011, 01:31 AM
Meta-discussion starts here.

almost not possible ... but i am working on it;)
I could use two or three at a time ... like this !!!
Or i could use them to separate phrases
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
like this.
But your right ... i will try to quit using them too extensively.

Please use the quotation marks to your heart's content. You're points are valid and your style is your own.

Meta-discussion ends here.


I don't want to say Obama is a shoe in, but I think we have seen this before. A sitting president is very hard to dislodge, and his perceived weaknesses seem enormous a year or two out, but close dramatically as the election nears. I didn't believe W had a snowball's chance in hell in 2004, and okay it was a tie, or stolen election, but he never should have gotten near the prize.

Obama is a much savvier politician and he is not nearly so unpopular. The OWS people will hate it, and probably for good reason, but they have taken some momentum away from the most ridiculous rhetoric of the Right and given the Dems some breathing space.

Instead of arguing about Obama's birth certificate, more questions about fiscal policy will need to be addressed. It may seem counter-intuitive, but I believe this helps President O.

October 24th, 2011, 05:19 PM
While the Re-Punks argue about who's mowing the lawn and obsess over birth certificates, here's something for them to chew on ...

The Untold Story Of The Actual Obama Record, Ctd (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/the-untold-story-of-the-actual-obama-record-ctd.html)

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20162fbe14e3a970d-550wi (http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20162fbe14e3a970d-popup)

October 24th, 2011, 07:31 PM
I continue to maintain that Obama's biggest advantage is the GOP field. Herman Cain? Really?

October 24th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Herman Cain? Oh, you must mean the Koch Brothers mouthpiece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/long-ties-to-koch-brothers-key-to-cains-campaign/2011/10/16/gIQAKTLPoL_story.html).

October 25th, 2011, 09:03 AM

It's too early.

Right now his best asset is that he keeps people from shouting "MORMON!!!!" every 2 minutes.

October 26th, 2011, 09:54 AM
I hope they keep shouting "Mormon" until Mitt is drummed out of the race. We don't need any dicks wearing magic underwear in the White House.

October 26th, 2011, 10:39 AM
You want dicks wearing no underwear??!?


October 26th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Underwear is great...but I start getting leery if it represents a sacred covenant with a space traveling prophet and you call it your temple garment.

October 26th, 2011, 03:57 PM
You keep L. Ron out of this!

October 26th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Actually, Scientologists and Mormons do both share a theology with roots in mythological space travel and I consider both to be a cult. If you try to get out, watch out!

"Mormons believe that a man from Kolob, and his wives, are entitled to four annual (Kolobian years) space trips to visit the Temple of Fertility on the planet Kolob..."

Magic undergarments are part of the whole protection against evil recommendation.

The Scientology cult believes in a space opera involving starships and intergalactic travel.

Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in extraterrestrial life forms existing somewhere, but creating a whole theology based on assertions about intergalactic prophets? well, then I tend to get suspicious of your judgment.

October 27th, 2011, 08:58 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Romney being Mormon.

After all... he's a moderate Mormon, he's not one of those fundamentalist Mormons or a fringe terrorist Mormon. I mean ...it's not like he's praying 5 times a day, facing Salt Lake City or forcing his many wife and daughters to wear a thing on their heads kind of Mormon.

And even if Mormons do believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them on Klobo when they die... as long as they don't actually take any of it seriously: who cares?

All of this Mormonophobia makes me sick.

October 27th, 2011, 10:20 AM
South park kind of said it best. http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons

The religion may be completely wack, but if it actually encouraging people to be NICER..... Well, what's wrong with that?

Again, not radical, not fundamentalist.

The only thing that bothers me about these religious roots is our pre-disposed obsession with aliens and sex. As hinted at in a skit by the Kids in the Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7sBTHtcLU , even if the Aliens DID want to "probe" us for information in the past, I think they would have gotten all the info they needed by now....

October 27th, 2011, 10:50 AM
Encourage people to be nice? The Mormons are the ones that fund so many of the anti gay campaigns. And that's sickening too.

But curiously, Islamophobia is A-OK, as seen on some other threads of this forum where certain idiotic people now defending Mormonism have spent so much energy on the anti-Muslim crap. Also sickening.

Also puke inducing: people who bash Islam while simultaneously defending Christianity. At least I think they're all equally ridiculous. Some consistency. If it were up to me, there would be an atheist sitting in the White House.

Not to mention what happens to people who try to leave the Mormon church. It's a cult.

October 27th, 2011, 10:57 AM
Can a person be hateful and nice at the same time? Seems so.

October 27th, 2011, 11:07 AM
The worst are those who are hateful if it is politically correct to be hateful.

October 27th, 2011, 11:10 AM
Some people are just hateful all around.

October 27th, 2011, 11:11 AM
Ughh... those Mus... er ... I mean Mormons...

October 27th, 2011, 11:17 AM
There is nothing wrong with Mormons if they're moderate! The trouble is the moderate ones don't speak up enough about the radicals! Ughhhh!!!! Just like on that other thread...hmmmmm....?

October 27th, 2011, 11:19 AM
Bit I am SO gratified that u-know-whooo decided to make his first appearance on THIS thread. Warms the cockles of my heart! Makes me feel...wanted.

October 27th, 2011, 11:32 AM
Mormon schmormon. The entire GOP field is whacked and it has nothing to do with Mormonism.

October 27th, 2011, 11:35 AM
Agreed, and the religious pandering and posturing among all of them is sickening.

October 27th, 2011, 11:52 AM
It is one thing to kiss the hand of God...

It is another to choose which God your supporters want to see you kissing.

October 30th, 2011, 11:22 PM
A Future President (in his own mind, anyway) ...

Clips of a few of the more, shall we say (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/on-a-roll.html), unplugged moments in a recent Rick Perry speech in New Hampshire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/29/video-rick-perrys-unusual-speech-performance_n_1065571.html).


October 30th, 2011, 11:27 PM
Is it just me, or does Rick Perry come off like an officious little prick?

October 31st, 2011, 03:00 AM
Just between you and me, I have to say I find him kinda hot.

Even if in the above video he seems like a drunken speaker at a Dentists Convention.

October 31st, 2011, 10:38 AM
He is an attractive individual, but that is something that is now required of a candidate in a televised electoral process.

No matter how smart or capable a candidate is, they will never be elected if they scare the babies they kiss.

November 1st, 2011, 05:19 PM
Huntsman sticks the fork into Romney's soft underbelly -- and gives it a few sharp twists ...


November 2nd, 2011, 02:45 PM
Cain implodes / explodes / self-destructs showing some testiness that is decidedly un-Presidential:

Report: Journalist Hit In The Face By Campaign And/Or Security At Cain Event (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/report-journalist-hit-in-the-face-by-campaign-and-security-at-cain-event.php?ref=fpb)

This seems to be the start of a new phase of the Cain saga, one where Cain decides to stop answering questions. That leads to embarrassing videos like this one, recorded at the same event the Times described:


November 2nd, 2011, 02:58 PM
Did not see it, but w/o sound it may be hard to get the cue from a handicam shot...

November 2nd, 2011, 03:49 PM
I don't know about this Herman Cain guy, but his mouth seems ready to accept his foot. It could happen any time.

This seems to be the start of a new phase of the Cain saga, one where Cain decides to stop answering questions.Well, if you just keep your mouth shut...

November 2nd, 2011, 03:50 PM
You put your foot in someone else's mouth?

November 5th, 2011, 02:18 AM
Is it just me, or does Rick Perry come off like an officious little prick?

It is not just you.

November 6th, 2011, 08:25 PM
2012 and beyond.

Americans torn between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street would back an independent for President

Republicans and Democrats could be at risk for losing voters

BY Douglas E. Schoen (http://wirednewyork.com/authors?author=Douglas E. Schoen)
Saturday, November 5 2011, 2:02 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.417265.1320592564!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_485/image.jpg Getty

Do you think that the country would benefit from having a third party candidate run in 2012?
There is broad dissatisfaction with our two-party system, and a strong desire for an independent candidate or candidates to run next year. Polling done by the Washington Post last week shows that more than six in ten Americans want an alternative, and additional polling that I have done shows that only a quarter are satisfied with the choices the two-party system offers.

While the bulk of the attention in the last two years has focused on the Tea Party on the right and, more recently, on the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left — each of which could theoretically try to launch a candidate for President — that’s the wrong place to look for a fresh face.
In American presidential politics, there is a broad group in the middle who could well be called a new silent majority. This 50% to 60% of the electorate wants consensus, conciliation and a constructive approach to problem solving. And it is this group that an independent candidacy for President can best address.
So many people are looking for alternatives because credibility of the two main political parties and of government institutions have almost hit rock bottom. The Washington Post poll shows that the Democratic Party’s rating is its lowest since 1984 at 48% favorable, 46% unfavorable. The Republican Party’s rating is even worse; a majority is unfavorable (53%) and just 40% are favorable. And by 61% to 32%, voters favor the idea of an independent candidate running for President against the Democratic and Republican Party nominees.

New York Times polling shows that our government has virtually no credibility. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say they distrust government, 84% disapprove of Congress and 74% say the country is on the wrong track. In 1992, the last time there was a viable presidential independent candidacy, Gallup polling showed that voters were satisfied with government, 58% to 39%. Now, voters say they are dissatisfied, 81% to 19%.
This is not simply another cycle of discontent. We’re dealing with historic levels of frustration.
In Gallup polling, 69% of respondents say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high. Fifty-seven percent have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, which exceeds the previous high of 53% recorded last year. And a majority (53%) has little or no confidence in the people who seek or hold elected office.

President Obama is not faring much better than Congress. Rasmussen Reports polling has Obama’s approval at 44%. Washington Post/ABC News polling released last month shows that just 35% approve of both his handling of the economy and of creating jobs, and 42% approve of his handling of taxes.
However, there is just as little enthusiasm for the Republican presidential candidates as there is for Obama, which comes as little surprise when one looks at how quickly primary voters have churned through frontrunners. Mitt Romney, the most moderate of the major contenders, has been fending off a line of conservatives, from Rep. Michele Bachmann to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to businessman Herman Cain. Yet according to the Times survey, about eight in 10 primary voters say it is still too early to tell whom they will support, and only four in 10 say they have been paying a lot of attention to the 2012 presidential campaign. No Republican candidate had support greater than 25%, and about one in 10 Republican primary voters say they would like to see someone else nominated.
Remember, the first primary voting starts in just two months.

Read the entire article:


November 7th, 2011, 08:53 AM
The problem is Independent PARTY /= Independent.

In our system you need money to win. w/o money, nobody knows who you ARE and nobody will vote for you.

Jesus could run for president and not get elected because he does not have enough money to advertise...

November 7th, 2011, 02:59 PM
What's the going cost to buy the presidency nowadays? Maybe a half a billion bucks, maybe more.

November 7th, 2011, 04:46 PM
It don't matter what you "stand for", it only matters whose hands are filling your pockets.

November 11th, 2011, 02:43 PM
Jon Stewart's Perrygasm (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/jon-stewarts-perrygasm.html)

This is worth resavoring if you missed it:

VID (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/jon-stewarts-perrygasm.html)

November 14th, 2011, 11:53 AM
The problem is Independent PARTY /= Independent.

In our system you need money to win. w/o money, nobody knows who you ARE and nobody will vote for you.

Jesus could run for president and not get elected because he does not have enough money to advertise...

Bloomberg has enough money to run as an independent. Not that he will, or that I would vote for him, but he DOES have more money than Jesus.

November 14th, 2011, 12:22 PM
He is too much of a wussie to appeal to the "home crowd" in the south.

If he looks even remotely gay, he is out.

November 14th, 2011, 02:41 PM
I agree it would be tough for him to win, but not for lack of funding.

November 14th, 2011, 03:15 PM
Let's see ... Torture, Theocracy, Endless War, Screw the Poor ...

Great Platform for the Grand Old Party.

Looks like those Obama girls will get to celebrate most of their teen years in the White House.

November 15th, 2011, 12:20 AM
Looks like that Republican Brain Freeze is contagious ...


November 18th, 2011, 06:56 AM
November 17, 2011, 3:56 pm

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

© 2011 The New York Times Company


November 18th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Sad part is, I did not even have to play the clip to remember the line.....

Vidiot Savant.

November 18th, 2011, 10:26 AM
Rachel Maddow has been examining in depth the Cain campaign as ART PROJECT (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/rachel-maddow-herman-cain_n_1099171.html) (which it appears to be). At least that offers one viable explanation.

Maybe Cain is getting tips from James Franco (http://www.eonline.com/news/james_franco_wacky_art_projects_fueled/272295) about how to flaunt his assets (http://flaunt.com/issue-117).

November 19th, 2011, 11:41 AM
Shepard Fairey (http://obeygiant.com/headlines/support-the-occupy-movement-x-free-downloads) captures the sorry state of the GOP ...

http://obeygiant.com/images/2011/10/Its_Mourning_BW_DL.gif (http://obeygiant.com/images/2011/10/Its_Mourning_BW_DL.pdf.zip)

November 19th, 2011, 02:22 PM
These BLR guys are brilliant ... Liam Neeson better watch out!


November 22nd, 2011, 11:51 PM
Prediction: Ron Paul wins Iowa. Media does not know what to do.

Romney will be the nominee.

November 28th, 2011, 11:48 AM
Core-free ...


November 29th, 2011, 03:14 PM
Looks like he won't have to learn where Libya is afterall

November 29, 2011, 11:53 am Cain Reassessing Candidacy Amid New AllegationsBy JEFF ZELENY (http://wirednewyork.com/author/jeff-zeleny/)2:18 p.m. | Updated Herman Cain (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/herman-cain?inline=nyt-per) told members of his campaign staff on Tuesday that he was reassessing whether to proceed with his presidential campaign, an aide confirmed, a day after an Atlanta woman disclosed details of what she said was a 13-year affair with him.

In a morning conference call with his advisers, Mr. Cain said that he would make a decision in the coming days about whether to stay in the race after his campaign was rocked by another round of allegations about his sexual conduct.

The call, which was first reported by National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284321/breaking-cain-reassessing-candidacy-robert-costa), came as Mr. Cain was heading to Michigan for a campaign stop on Tuesday evening. He said that he was discussing the future of his campaign with his family and was considering his options.

“This is cause for reassessment,” Mr. Cain said, according to one participant on the call who spoke on condition of anonymity. “During the summer we had to make some reassessments based on our financial situation. We were able to hang in there.”

Mr. Cain denied the accusations from the Atlanta woman, Ginger White. But he acknowledged that the latest report of sexual misconduct might be more difficult to overcome, considering that the first voting is set to take place in five weeks at the Iowa caucuses. He said that he had not lost his enthusiasm to run, but suggested it was a distraction that could be difficult to recover from.

“With this latest one, we have to do an assessment as to whether or not this is going to create too much of a cloud in some peoples’ minds as to whether or not they should support us going forward,” Mr. Cain said, according to the participant on the call.

Steve Grubbs, the chairman of the Cain campaign in Iowa, urged supporters on Tuesday to not be distracted by the allegations and to press ahead with their effort for the Iowa caucuses.

“I believe in Herman Cain and his ideas. We need to get back on message and make it to the Iowa caucuses,” said Mr. Grubbs, who was on the conference call. “My request is that you don’t let anyone pick your candidate based on these allegations.”

In a message to supporters who have pledged to be precinct leaders for Mr. Cain in Iowa, Mr. Grubbs reminded the Republicans of the “similarly difficult times” in the respective campaign of Senator John McCain and former President Bill Clinton. He noted that Mr. Cain denied the allegations.

“They both weathered the storm and emerged to be their party’s nominees,” Mr. Grubbs wrote Tuesday in his note to supporters. He added, “Thank you for taking a long view of our sometimes challenging electoral process.”

Mr. Cain, whose unconventional and anti-Washington sentiment captured the imagination of Republican voters, has seen his standing in the polls fall over the last month after accusations of sexual harassment surfaced from his time leading the National Restaurant Association. He has denied those allegations, which have been made by at least four women who worked for him.

In an interview broadcast Monday by Fox 5 Atlanta (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ginger-white-claims-affair-herman-cain-20111127-es), Ms. White detailed what she said was a 13-year affair with Mr. Cain.

“It was pretty simple,” Ms. White said in the interview. “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

The station said that Ms. White produced cellphone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to and from a number she said was for Mr. Cain’s private cellphone. When the station sent a text message to the number, Mr. Cain called back and acknowledged knowing Ms. White.

Mr. Cain sought to get ahead of Ms. White’s allegation by making a pre-emptive appearance Monday afternoon on CNN, where he pledged to “stay focused on this campaign.” But several supporters said that they did not see how he could proceed.

“There is no realistic path forward,” said one Republican supporter.

The sentiment on the conference call suggested that Mr. Cain was aware of the gravity of the challenges facing his candidacy. He said that he would wait to see the reaction from his supporters before making a final decision.

“It’s also taken a toll on my wife and family, as you would imagine,” Mr. Cain said at the end of the call, according to National Review. He added, “For some people, you’re guilty until proven innocent. And so, the public will have to decide whether they believe her or whether they believe me. That’s why we’re going to give it time, to see what type of response we get from our supporters.”

Mr. Cain said that he would press ahead with his public schedule, including the speech Tuesday night in Michigan.

As Mr. Cain’s candidacy has floundered, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, has seen his prospects rise in recent weeks. If Mr. Cain decides to leave the race, several of his supporters have said that they are likely to support Mr. Gingrich. But with five weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the race remains remarkably unsettled and fluid, making predictions difficult.

November 29th, 2011, 03:24 PM
He was on the fall even before that.

He should have tried to play down the front runner position as soon as he had it so it could last the long run, but like almost all before him, he burned bright until people saw the ashes he left behind....

November 30th, 2011, 04:50 PM
WEST CHESTER, Ohio (AP) — His campaign rocked anew, a feisty Herman Cain claimed a "groundswell of positive support" from backers on WednesdayWell, that's swell.

November 30th, 2011, 05:33 PM
So who was riding the swell?

November 30th, 2011, 07:20 PM
Mayor Bloomberg: ‘I Have My Own Army’

POLITICKERNY (http://www.politickerny.com/2011/11/30/mayor-bloomberg-i-have-my-own-army-11-30-11/)
November 30, 2011

In a speech at MIT last night to discuss the packed sweepstakes to build a tech campus in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg said he prefers City Hall to the White House. Almost immediately after Mayor Bloomberg dampened recent speculation (http://www.politickerny.com/2011/11/22/mike-bloomberg-barack-obama-media-11222011/) he’s eyeing a White House bid, he added fuel to the fire by explaining why a mayor would be the best person for the job.

Mayor Bloomberg’s recent criticism (http://www.politickerny.com/2011/11/22/mike-bloomberg-barack-obama-media-11222011/) of President Obama for allowing the debt reduction Supercommittee to fail led many political tea leaf watchers to believe he’s eyeing a potential White House bid. To the dismay of those who hope (http://www.politickerny.com/2011/10/11/ralph-nader-wants-mike-bloomberg-to-run-for-president/) he’ll mount presidential campaign, Mayor Bloomberg began his speech last night by discussing why City Hall is just fine by him.

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

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

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

Mayor Bloomberg explained that, unlike Washington politicians, mayors are people of action.

“The difference between my level of government and other levels of government is that action takes place at the city level,” Mayor Bloomberg said. “The cities and mayors are where you deal with crime, you deal with real immigration problems, you deal with health problems, you deal with picking up the garbage.”

You see, according to Mayor Bloomberg, he and his mayoral colleagues are focused on results. It’s the rest of the politicians who are screwing things up.

“At the state or federal level, that’s where the real problems are. You see it particularly in American government at the moment where they are just unable to do anything, and yet, the mayors of this country still have to deal with the real world,” said Mayor Bloomberg.
Mayor Bloomberg closed by expressing the desire for someone with real, executive experience to arrive on the scene and change things in Washington.

“Unfortunately, people at the federal level or the state level typically spend their whole lives in politics, and they’ve never been an executive and it shows,” Mayor Bloomberg said.

Who could he possibly be thinking of?

December 1st, 2011, 09:01 AM
He must be talking about Reagan.....

No wait, he got his experience co-starring with a monkey... nevermind.

December 1st, 2011, 11:00 AM
So who was riding the swell?

I read somewhere that when asked about foreign affairs, Herman Cain swore he did not have any. ( OK I did not really read that) :p

December 2nd, 2011, 12:25 PM
Herman, crashing and burning, takes a stab to seem like Clean Cain:

Herman Cain Launches ‘Women For Cain’
With Brutal Attacks On ‘Husbandless’ Accusers

(http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/herman-cain-launches-women-for-cain-with-brutal-attacks-on-husbandless-accusers.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)By BENJY SARLIN
DECEMBER 2, 2011


While Herman Cain weighs whether to stay in the race after being accused of carrying on a decade-plus affair, the campaign is looking to repair the damage his various alleged improprieties have caused with women supporters. His website just went live with a new “Women For Cain” section (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc) where female supporters can share their stories — and slam his accusers as “vindictive,” “jealous,” “unstable,” and “husbandless.”

The initiative, the site says, is chaired by his wife, Gloria Cain, who has been virtually 100% absent from the campaign trail so far and only recently (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/herman-cains-wife-finally-speaks-out-video.php) gave her first interview — and that was after canceling previous ones first.

“Mr. Cain has been a strong advocate for women throughout his lifetime, defending and promoting the issues of quality health care, family, education, equality in the workplace and many other concerns so important to American women,” the website reads.

The real prize, however, is a section — which appears to be curated by the campaign — featuring female supporters’ personal testimonials, many of which are brutal attacks against the women who have accused Cain of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and infidelity.

“Dear Mrs. Cain, don’t pay attention to these pathetic husbandless women who are jealous of women like you in happy long-term marriages,” a supporter from California writes. “These vindictive women can’t find a husband or keep one. They are like stalkers who try to latch on to any man who shows a bit of kindness or attention to them. When these unstable women come out of the woodwork to make accusations about Herman just say, ‘Honey, get a life, I believe my husband.’ We want you to be our First Lady Mrs. Cain!”

Another post, by a supporter in Georgia, laments how “now because of scheming women that can be swayed by money, attention or whatever else the reason may be, your reputation is at stake - not theirs as it should be. I do not believe these women are victims…I believe you are.”

Another, from Missouri: “I cannot believe you had time for an affair. If you are ill and fighting for your life, suffering through chemotherapy, how can you have time between hospital visits and family time? Wouldn’t you be too sick to participate in a make-believe affair? You are a triple threat to the Left!! I believe these ‘women’ are looking for money and attention and have been groomed by the ‘Demonacrats’ to be a bunch of bad actress’. The Left is desperate and they are low enough to break the law and lie. My husband and I are strong supporters. Don’t let the bad guys win. Don’t give up!! 999!!!”


The STOCK PHOTO (http://fr.fotolia.com/id/23716340) used by the Cain clan (showing the quartet of "thumbs up" ladies) is from a photographer in Germany:

Vier Frauen halten ihre Daumen hoch © Robert Kneschke #23716340 - Voir le portfolio (http://fr.fotolia.com/p/200576396)

http://t2.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/23/71/63/400_F_23716340_Soznc2yA2b2CNkRkRnRF9k4JSaQ2zBZI.jp g

December 2nd, 2011, 12:35 PM

December 2nd, 2011, 09:50 PM
http://menforcain.com/images/header_copy.jpg (http://menforcain.com/index.php)


"Men For Cain" is a national online high-five of men dedicated to giving props to the ultimate ladies' man Herman Cain, our next President of the United States. Mr. Cain, beyond any other candidate with exception of maybe Newt, has done more to get into women's pants throughout his lifetime, defending and promoting the negative issues associated with quality PDA, T&A and serious office groping. Forget the 9-9-9 plan, let’s talk about the 6-9 plan. When the liberal lame-stream media calls his skill with the ladies "exploits," Mr. Cain calls them conquests. As the nation is struggling to find work, Mr. Cain has found countless jobs for women, right there in his pants. And the best part, his wife has no idea. His erection will win this election for GOP. Join us and voice your support to Herman Cain, our next Philander in Chief.

SHARE your STORY (http://menforcain.com/form.php)

Ho Magnet

Herman's welcome in our 'hood after his old lady kicks him out this weekend. Herman, come out west and hang with your homeboys. We got lotsa HOS for you, too! LMAO!

Posted: December 02, 2011 08:12 pm


Who ya gonna vote for??? The Cat in the Hat!

Posted: December 02, 2011 09:12 pm

Big Bill

I've got some cigars you might be interested in, Herman...and take up the sax, trust me, it pays off.

Posted: December 02, 2011 09:12 pm

TWEET @Men4Cain (http://www.twitter.com/men4cain)

awesome PICTURES




December 2nd, 2011, 10:55 PM

December 2nd, 2011, 11:50 PM
Herman's team went and wrecked the fun by removing the stock photo on the Women For Cain page.

Now it makes no sense at all:

WOMEN for HERMAN CAIN (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc)


December 3rd, 2011, 01:23 PM
Waiting for the Cain announcement.

But, given the new changes to the WOMEN for HERMAN CAIN (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc) webpage, it looks like the Cain Train is staying on track -- with wife Gloria on board ...
WOMEN for HERMAN CAIN (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc)

"Women For Cain" is an online national fellowship of women dedicated to helping elect Herman Cain as the next President of the United States.

Mr. Cain has been a strong advocate for women throughout his lifetime, defending and promoting the issues of quality health care, family, education, equality in the workplace and many other concerns so important to American women.

Gloria Cain is the National Chairperson for "Women for Cain" and is the very special woman who Mr. Cain devoted his life to many years ago ...

December 5th, 2011, 05:48 PM
Romney just got a blockbuster endorsement. NOT!


December 5th, 2011, 06:49 PM
December 4, 2011

Send in the Clueless


There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because Herman Cain was not an accident.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or to be totally clueless.

Mitt Romney embodies the first option. He’s not a stupid man; he knows perfectly well, to take a not incidental example, that the Obama health reform is identical in all important respects to the reform he himself introduced in Massachusetts — but that doesn’t stop him from denouncing the Obama plan as a vast government takeover that is nothing like what he did. He presumably knows how to read a budget, which means that he must know that defense spending has continued to rise under the current administration, but this doesn’t stop him from pledging to reverse Mr. Obama’s “massive defense cuts.”

Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV.

Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless.

And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness. Think in particular of Rick Perry, a conservative true believer who seemingly had everything it took to clinch the nomination — until he opened his mouth.

So will Newt Gingrich suffer the same fate? Not necessarily.

Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior. Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate?

And Mr. Gingrich has some advantages none of the previous challengers had. He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he’s a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about. And my sense is that he’s also very good at doublethink — that even when he knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he manages to believe it while he’s saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors.

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.

Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?

The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.”

The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?

© 2011 The New York Times Company

December 6th, 2011, 09:59 AM
Whispering into Michele's ear (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/michele-bachmann-elijah-activist-_n_1130591.html) ...


December 7th, 2011, 06:02 AM
^ If he said that of his own volition, good on him. But did he?

Anyway, I really feel for the U.S. with politicians like Bachmann...

...not to mention Gingrich. As for Trump:

The selection of a reality television personality...

Ouch! :D

Donald Trump is back! And he still has a black people problem

by David A. Love

Donald Trump is back! And there's every indication that he still has a black people problem. Apparently, the real estate and reality show mogul with the criminally tasteless combover doesn't like black folks, which makes one wonder why he chooses to live in the city with the largest number of us.

Trump is like luggage. He sticks around. After flirting with presidential politics and trash talking about the president -- with absurd talk about Obama having a foreign birth certificate -- he won't go away or be silenced.

He claimed he made Lady Gaga famous. And Trump is hosting a December 27 debate in Iowa, which Congressman Ron Paul and former Ambassador Jon Huntsman will not attend.

The Paul camp issued a statement. "The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the presidency and flies in the face of that office's history and dignity."

The Paul campaign continued to say that "Mr. Trump's participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump's participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere."

Trump responded, "Few people take Ron Paul seriously and many of his views and presentation make him a clown-like candidate."

According to Trump, many Republicans have asked him to host the debate. But it looks as if Trump is trying to play both sides. At the same time, he has said that if he isn't satisfied with that the current field of GOP candidates can beat Obama, he will consider running as a third-party candidate himself. This poses a real problem for the Republican Party, unless Trump is just blowing smoke. In the meantime, Trump is playing the role of self-anointed kingmaker, which he seems to enjoy. But not everyone is kissing his ring.

"I don't quite understand the marching to his office," Paul said of the various presidential candidates who make pilgrimages to the Trump's New York headquarters. "I didn't realize he had the ability to lay on hands and anoint people."

Paul is right behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with second place in a Des Moines Register poll of Iowa caucus voters. Speaking of Gingrich, he created a firestorm of late when he suggested that poor inner city children lacking a work ethic should be hired as janitors, and their labor apparently exploited.

"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid," Gingrich said. He added that to solve poverty, "schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school." Sounds like illegal child slavery to me. I thought we've been there already.

It would be more than enough for Newt to merely say that child labor laws are stupid -- which he did -- and propose that poor kids clean the toilets in school. Now, Gingrich and Trump -- two arrogant blowhards with huge egos who love to hear themselves talk, to be sure -- are teaming up. Gingrich asked the Donald to offer apprenticeships to 10 children in the poorest New York City schools.

Because the one thing that black and Latino children really need is to work for an angry white man who disrespects them, wants to exploit their labor, and still maintains that America's first African-American president wasn't born in America. Of course, this is exactly the type of thing conservative audiences love to hear, which explains why someone dares to say it.

Recently on The Today Show, Trump asserted that inner city children have no role models except President Obama. "Unfortunately, he hasn't turned out to be much of a role model," Trump said.

"No, they don't have in many cases role models, Matt. It's very sad," said Trump. "They do not have role models. I know it's not a popular statement, but it happens to be true."
Now, those of us who consider ourselves black role models take offense. And Rev. Al Sharpton of MSNBC's PoliticsNation and the National Action Network has joined Rev. Dr. Franklyn Richardson of Grace Baptist Church to condemn the remarks.

According to Rev. Sharpton, "I have known Donald Trump for many years and will not let the negligent statement he made on The Today Show go unchallenged. He needs to retract his comments immediately or we will organize direct action against him."

Rev. Richardson added: "I am appalled that a man in his position would make such an irresponsible and ignorant comment on a national forum and ignore the contrary fact that there is a plethora of black role models in this country. His insensitivity is what fosters negative imagery and the perpetuation of racism in this country."

Gingrich called Trump "a genuine American icon." Donald Trump has positioned himself as somewhat of a folk hero, a Horatio Alger, up-by-the-bootstraps, self-made man. But in reality, he is a rich man who inherited his wealth from his wealthy father. Despite having being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Trump's businesses filed for bankruptcy four times. And he still manages to thrive under the facade of the perfect picture of success.

Meanwhile, though Trump claims to enjoy billionaire status, it is hard to believe that any real billionaire would depend on a reality show for his bread and butter.

Despite his role as kingmaker in the presidential field, he has some Republicans scared of the negative effect he could have on the race. A new NBC poll shows 32 percent of Iowa Republican voters less likely to vote for a candidate with a Trump endorsement, with 21 percent more likely, 44 percent indifferent and 3 percent unsure. Similarly, New Hampshire voters are less likely to vote for a candidate with Trump's blessing by a two-to-one margin -- 37 percent to 19 percent.

Trump is the ringmaster of a political circus in his own mind. It is fitting that he has inserted himself into a presidential race filled with sideshow acts the likes of Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and the recently departed Herman Cain of "Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan-stan" fame. There is no hint that kissing the Donald's ring will help a presidential hopeful clinch the nomination, and the polls confirm this. And yet, Trump and the GOP field were made for each other. While he won't be silenced, Trump really needs to stop talking.


December 8th, 2011, 01:04 AM
Serial Hypocrite :D

And that's being nice ...


December 8th, 2011, 05:05 PM
Perry’s jacket in anti-gay ad?
Heath Ledger wore it in “Brokeback Mountain”

AMERICA blog ELECTIONS (http://elections.americablog.com/2011/12/perrys-jacket-in-anti-gay-ad-heath.html)
By Matt Ortega at 12/08/2011 12:59:00 PM

Rick Perry launched an anti-gay ad called, "Strong." In the ad, he attacks gays openly serving in the armed forces.


As it turns out, the gays get their revenge... the jacket Rick Perry wore in the ad? Heath Ledger wore it in "Brokeback Mountain."
Per the Twitter, author anonymous but now infamous:

Rick Perry: "Why can't I quit oops!?"

Update Sam Stein at Huffington Post got a huge scoop on the Iowa ad. Apparently it has divided Perry's top staff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/rick-perry-anti-gay-iowa-ad-divides-top-staff_n_1136587.html).

But not everyone was comfortable with the script. When the ad was being crafted several weeks ago, Perry's top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it "nuts," according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad's main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio's objections.

"Tony was against it from the get-go," Warfield wrote. "It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production."

December 11th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Now is the time to decide who to support for the 2012 Presidential Campaign. I like both Newt & Romney; but it just is not going to happen for Newt - so Romney will get my vote.

I hope he continues to win the confidence of registered democrats like myself, as well as some of the folks here speaking well of his proposed health care plan.


December 11th, 2011, 12:06 PM
Why is now the time to decide? The NY State Primary Election (http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/) doesn't take place until April 24, 2012. Lots can change in 5 months.

December 11th, 2011, 01:02 PM
And a registered Democrat won't be able to cast a vote for Newt or Mitt or any other Republican until the actual General Election for President on November 6, 2012 (to partake in a Primary Vote one must register with the particular party for which one wants to cast a vote):

Voter Registration

Board of Elections City of New York (http://vote.nyc.ny.us/register.html)

Party Affiliation and the Primary System

In a Primary Election, only voters registered with one of the parties qualified to hold a primary in New York City may vote to nominate their party's candidate to run in the general election.

Candidates nominated by the parties for each office then appear on the general election ballot, along with any independent candidates who gain access to the general ballot without running in the party primaries.

Voting in Primary Elections

Because a primary is strictly a party election, only voters registered with one of the parties conducting a primary may participate in that party's election. Voters registered without party affiliation may vote only in General and Special Elections.

December 11th, 2011, 01:07 PM
I know the state of the Republican party is hardly admirable. None the less, Obama must be defeated, so vote Romney, or Newt, or Perry, or Perry's dog: any of which would be a substantial improvement over Obama.

Politics is a little bit like the fundamental principals of Darwinian natural selection: what is 'best' comes down to the lesser of two evils. (LOL)

Please help with my net campaign and TWEET this - http://twitter.com/#!/votemittromney

December 11th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Perry’s jacket in anti-gay ad?
Heath Ledger wore it in “Brokeback Mountain”

What I find facinating about Perry is that I don't recall ever seeing a candidate in such an odd position. He entered the race, shot to the top of the polls, raised large amounts of money, then promptly imploded. The combination of his poor debate performances, odd policy positions, and resulting low poll numbers make it fairly clear he now has no shot at the nomination (he is polling poorly even in states like South Carolina, where he aught to be doing well just by default).

This is a man who did not intend to run in the first place, got a late start, and by all accounts was "talked into" running. So now he is sitting on this large campaign stash, and has to continually go out and publically embarrass himself, when even he and his people must know his campaign is done. As I said, I don't recall any past candidate who has been in a similar position: He really should quit, but he can't. So he is heading towards the Iowa caucus and NH primary, both of which he will almost certainly lose big. It reminds me of a cartoon character on a raft heading for the falls, paddling furiously, yet his heart is not really in it, because he knows he is going over the falls, and so does everybody else.