I am going to be old enough to vote in the upcoming presidential election. At this point it looks like I am going to have to choose between Obama or whatever Republican shmuck gets nominated, which will most likely be Romney or Santorum. Romney is just plain old sad, as he seems addicted to blaming Obama for everything, plus he cannot seem to ever make up his mind on anything. And, as Santorum wants government to "guide" the way society goes, he has definitely lost my vote.
The only Repub I might vote for is John Huntsman, as he is much more liberal when it comes to society.
If you don't vote, you can't complain. Remember that
I think it has less to do with policy and more about charisma and charm for a lot of people (to a degree, myself included).
None of the GOP candidates seem to have any notable oration skills or... projection. They all seem like dishonest, scheming old farts to me. Not saying all GOP candidates are awful at these things either.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Romney is just plain old run of the mill, Joe-blow, boring as heck carry-the-party-line Repub.
So few words demonstrate so clearly how much you know about either the candidates or the party itself.
If Romney is so run of the mill R, WHY DO THE ALL HATE HIM?
As a, thankful, outsider to American politics i always get a bit confused as to all the voting and the people...
However, i will say this. The republican party are good for laughs... though it occurs to me that some of them are serious and that makes me scared...
It could be worse. These dual incumbents could have an ad campaign like the one for NJ's governor, which was a horrid, fetid mess of mud and poo-slinging.
Am I crazy for just ignoring all of the election campaign hoopla from both sides and voting for Obama for the simple fact of just staying the course?
I don't personally see anything he did that would make me want to vote him out and I see nothing from any Republican candidate that makes me want to vote them in. A change of the guard won't matter with a divided House and Senate anyway, from how I see things. Any change will just be from a black dude getting politically c-blocked to a white guy getting the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Stan McChrystal?
Too lazy to google....too tired
Retired 4-star general, made famous for resigning due to some ill-advised remarks, made by his aides, to a Rolling Stone reporter.
Also allegedly covered up Pat Tilmans death, according to some investigators. Seeing him at the court hearing during The Tilman Story just makes me think he's as greasy and corrupt as any career politician.
Historically aren't generals poor performing US presidents anyway?
NELS1031 wrote:Am I crazy for just ignoring all of the election campaign hoopla from both sides and voting for Obama for the simple fact of just staying the course?
I don't personally see anything he did that would make me want to vote him out and I see nothing from any Republican candidate that makes me want to vote them in. A change of the guard won't matter with a divided House and Senate anyway, from how I see things. Any change will just be from a black dude getting politically c-blocked to a white guy getting the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Stan McChrystal?
Too lazy to google....too tired
Retired 4-star general, made famous for resigning due to some ill-advised remarks, made by his aides, to a Rolling Stone reporter.
Also allegedly covered up Pat Tilmans death, according to some investigators. Seeing him at the court hearing during The Tilman Story just makes me think he's as greasy and corrupt as any career politician.
Historically aren't generals poor performing US presidents anyway?
Yeah Ike were worst president ever. Expanded Social Security, Built the Interstates, Desegregated Schools, passed Civil Rights Legislation despite LBJ. Bottom of the barrel.
NELS1031 wrote:
Historically aren't generals poor performing US presidents anyway?
Not really, its about as close to an average distribution as you'll get in a set that small. Some good (Washington, Eisenhower), some bad (Pierce, Grant).
Since I started voting, I've had a choice between:
Bush and Gore.
Bush and Kerry.
McCain and Obama.
The primary system pretty much precludes us from getting the next Thomas Jefferson. It's best to make your peace with that and realize you're not voting for the guy you like, you're voting for the guy you hope will feth up less.
However, definitely vote. Bear in mind that 65+ year-old men are making decisions every day that'll have an impact on your future long after they're dead. You want a say.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Romney is just plain old run of the mill, Joe-blow, boring as heck carry-the-party-line Repub.
So few words demonstrate so clearly how much you know about either the candidates or the party itself. If Romney is so run of the mill R, WHY DO THE ALL HATE HIM?
D'oh! I meant to attribute that statement to Santorum, my bad.
Oh, and next time you catch me making a goof up, try not to be so abrasive, m'kay? I was very tempted to flame you.
Seaward wrote:However, definitely vote. Bear in mind that 65+ year-old men are making decisions every day that'll have an impact on your future long after they're dead. You want a say.
Yeah, it's how the country's developed. Bunch of old farts ruining it for everyone else.
I could live with Huntsman, or possibly even Romney. Hunstman seems pretty sane. With Romney I am disappointed with a lot of the junk coming out of his mouth nowadays, but I recognize it as part and parcel of the current primary environment. In reality he's not all that extreme or stupid. He is disingenuous, but not much moreso than most politicians. The irony of him touting his business experience when that business experience was largely based on looting companies for cash and destroying jobs is pretty thick.
Samus_aran115 wrote:If you don't vote, you can't complain. Remember that .
Why not? No matter who I vote for, I'm getting a candidate I don't think will do a very good job.
even if the Presidential candidates suck (Terry Roosevelt, where are you!!!) there are lots of sucky Congressional candidates to vote for. Plus yucky state and local elections. Son you have a job to do. Get to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I could live with Huntsman, or possibly even Romney. Hunstman seems pretty sane. With Romney I am disappointed with a lot of the junk coming out of his mouth nowadays, but I recognize it as part and parcel of the current primary environment. In reality he's not all that extreme or stupid. He is disingenuous, but not much moreso than most politicians. The irony of him touting his business experience when that business experience was largely based on looting companies for cash and destroying jobs is pretty thick.
Holy crap, Mannahnin and I agree completely. Sounds like a wiener dog conspiracy to me.
McCrystal was a special forces officer and was a driving force of counter-insurgency doctrine. And we all know how well that worked out.... He wouldn't get my vote, even over Obama.
Same.
Santorum is a freak. After his newborn died he slept with the corpes and toook it home for a few days.
Not to mention he was to outlaw birth-control.
Dont know much about romney.
But obama may have lost my my vote when he sign NDAA.
The problem Im facing, is Obama lost my vote a long time ago, so do I vote for whoever is the Republican runner, or waste a vote and go with another party all together?
Will any of us ever live long enough to see a NON Dem/GOP president?
hotsauceman1 wrote:After his newborn died he slept with the corpes and toook it home for a few days.
Probably not something you want being published in a book authored by your wife.
Not that anyone directly connected to the opposition could use that against Santorum, its just one of those idle facts that you don't want floating around.
I doubt it. The country is too politically separate. Having a distinct third part would indicate that there's a large portion of the population that has different ideas (as opposed to having NO ideas) from the other two parties, which isn't the case.
Maybe in twenty years, when all these baby-boomer fethers fall over and croak, we might see a third part erupt.
Is the "green party" a separate party, or just a different sect of democratic thinking?
Remember it is the primaries. A Democrat must pander to the left estreme liberals. A Republican must pander to the right wing fanatics. Wait until they are head-to-head to find out who you will vote for.
BTW, I have been voting since 78. With the exception of Ronnie, I have been scared, bored or both with every candidate since. (Both sides)
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Romney is just plain old run of the mill, Joe-blow, boring as heck carry-the-party-line Repub.
So few words demonstrate so clearly how much you know about either the candidates or the party itself.
If Romney is so run of the mill R, WHY DO THE ALL HATE HIM?
D'oh! I meant to attribute that statement to Santorum, my bad.
Oh, and next time you catch me making a goof up, try not to be so abrasive, m'kay? I was very tempted to flame you.
_Tim?
I don't see how you think you could flame me for your boo booz.
That said Santorum is a freak show that makes party line Republicans look like goslings next to a swan of intolerance and awestrickingly radical viewpoints. Your description doesn't fit either but even wrong it was closer to Romney.
Ah, primary season. The magic time of the year were politicians of both stripes make ridiculous statements to win over the most fringe elements of their party, followed by about 6 months of vehemently denying they ever said those things or held those positions so they can appeal to the rest of the country.
People make a lot of noise about Presidential elections, but it's mostly a moot point. Presidents hold very little direct power, outside of war, and essentially are cheeleaders for the US. It doesn't really matter who we elect, the entrenched bureaucracy that actually runs the country will keep on marching to the same tune anyway. I also have come to think voting is a total waste of time. I've never missed a major election since I became old enough to vote, but this year (and presumably, going forward) it just seems like a huge waste of time, akin to voting for American Idol singers. I'd like to hear Biccat's perspective on why it's important; and not to argue with it, but because frankly I'd like to be convinced.
Seaward wrote:I gave money to Huntsman yesterday. Feel pretty good about myself. Still probably voting for Obama since Romneybot's going to take the primary.
Seaward wrote:I gave money to Huntsman yesterday. Feel pretty good about myself. Still probably voting for Obama since Romneybot's going to take the primary.
...words fail me.
Why's that? Romney's the Republicans' answer to John Kerry.
If you vote for a third party it is not a "wasted" vote. If they receive a certain percentage of the vote, it make sthem eligible for Federal election financial support dollars next time around. They can use this to continue to build their ground game.
The Independence Party in Minnesota, has used such contributions to make reasonably strong showings in the state Senate, House, Federal Senate, Federal House, and State Governorship elections.
Seaward wrote:However, definitely vote. Bear in mind that 65+ year-old men are making decisions every day that'll have an impact on your future long after they're dead. You want a say.
Yeah, it's how the country's developed. Bunch of old farts ruining it for everyone else.
The more of the younger generations I experience, the less I want THEM voting either.... it's a double edged sword.
The UK newspapers are reporting that Romney has taken a blow after the firing people comment gaffe.
Although, by the sounds of things he is hardly a paragon of virtue (taken from the Telegraph):
The record of Bain Capital, the company he led for 14 years, has however come under intensified scrutiny as his rivals have sought to slow down his apparently smooth progress to the nomination. It has emerged that many companies it restructured shed jobs or ended up in bankruptcy while its shareholders made large profits.
.. Well, if the Presidential thing doesn't work out at least he will be able to ease into a position at GW following Kirby's retirement
Yes. Hence, we have House Speaker John Bahner instead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The "Fired" thing was basically about him being able to pick and choose Insurance companies.
However, his opponenets in the Repub nomination process saw it as a great opportunity to use Romney's Business backgroudn strength as a potential weakness. Classic.
troy_tempest wrote:Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator
He is a fairly charismatic man but he is working in one of the most polarized states the country has seen in in awhile.
troy_tempest wrote:or because the republicans don't like him
That is a big part of it.
troy_tempest wrote:and what he's trying to do?
That is a little more complicated. Some of it they don't like, but other things, like the Health Care Reform bill that was passed was made up of Republican ideas, but since it wasn't passed by them it comes under attack, which harkens back to them just not liking him. For some it is personal, for some it is just becuase they want to be the ones in power.
troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?
For a bill to get through Congress it will need the support of at least some Republicans, so that makes legislating without bi-partisan agreement difficult. One problem is that for about a year the Democrats had the ability to pass any legislation they wanted and the Republicans couldn't do anything about it. The Republicans are now trying to back off some of this legislation (which requires the current Congress to follow up on it), and to some extent are expecting a victory in 2012, so they want to slow down what the Democrats are doing.
Will it change? Possible. All of the Representatives are up for re-election in 2012 and so are 33 Senators (23 Democrat, 10 Republican). However, most people tend to vote party-line with their presidential choice, so if Obama wins comfortably it's very likely that the Democrats will pick up a number of seats in the House and will retain control of the Senate.
Many of the projections I've seen show the Democrats losing seats in the Senate (probably not enough to lose it) and the House staying with a slight Republican bias.
troy_tempest wrote:Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?
Depends on who you ask. Obama certainly hasn't reached out much to the Republicans and the Republicans don't like him because of how he acted during his first two years in office - dismissive towards the minority party.
His recent actions (Libya, recess appointments, EPA, NLRB, etc.) are consistent with his rhetoric "where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves." It's a massive overreach of Executive power, but Republicans aren't willing to challenge this overreach. Mainly because instituting impeachment proceedings (their only remedy) is a poison pill, especially because Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"*
Note that whatever the Republicans do, the Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"
Easy E wrote:When congress is not willing to act, traditionally the other two branches move to fill the gap. This is nothing new.
Political deadlock/infighting in the Legislative branch is not a bug of our system of government, it's a feature. Also, traditionally the other two branches haven't 'moved to fill the gap.' I'm sure you could come up with some examples.
With the Senate seats there is always less of a popular referendum, or at least in my experience that's the case. Senators who represent thier states well tend to be respected regardless of party until the people of the state sour to them. It's probably not based on any kind of rational thinking, I don't give American voters that kind of credit. But that's just my opinion and not based on facts at all. The House is the place where shake ups according to popular opinion happen, most runners for the House are nameless faceless people no one cares about, and if they do have a face it's generally because they've been in the House too long and have become easy fodder for opponents. Barney Frank said he wouldn't run for reelection due to redistricting because he didn't want to have to ge to know his constituency; which speaks volumes about him and other career politicians.
troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?
Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?
The HR is a hard nut to crack, there are so many members that it is rare you will have a unified Dem or Repub "will."
The real issue is or is not having a "super" majority in the senate. Without that, any senator can filibuster any attempt at bringing up a bill. The 2008 Dems had a majority in the house and super majority in the senate as well as the president. That is why we now have "Obama care" the dems had no need to compromise so they could push anything through. They got what they wanted but also got smashed in the 2010 elections for their hubris of assuming they had a mandate.
If you don't like it, don't vote, or stop whining.
Politicians are gak because humans are gak. You want to improve the caliber of the political class, better break out your chemistry set.
biccat wrote:Also, traditionally the other two branches haven't 'moved to fill the gap.' I'm sure you could come up with some examples.
Enough to establish a tradition, in fact.
Hell, executive orders alone establish that fact.
Yup.
Isn't it Repubs who scream the most about "Activist" judges? Why do you think they get "activist" in the first place?
I'm not a legal scholar like yourself, but I believe Judge Marshall seized the power to declare laws Unconstitutional, rather than that power being explicitly granted within the document itself. Again, I'm not a legal scholar so I'm sure you can point out the flaws in my argument ad nauseum.
Easy E wrote:Isn't it Repubs who scream the most about "Activist" judges? Why do you think they get "activist" in the first place?
I'm not a legal scholar like yourself, but I believe Judge Marshall seized the power to declare laws Unconstitutional, rather than that power being explicitly granted within the document itself. Again, I'm not a legal scholar so I'm sure you can point out the flaws in my argument ad nauseum.
I'm certainly not a "legal scholar." However, citing Marburry v. Madison as an example where Congress failed to act is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
In fact, in most cases where judges are being "activist" (advancing causes that don't have the popular support to pass Congress), Congress' failure to act is part of the political process, and as I said a bug not a feature.
biccat wrote:
In fact, in most cases where judges are being "activist" (advancing causes that don't have the popular support to pass Congress), Congress' failure to act is part of the political process, and as I said a bug not a feature.
The same argument can be made for judicial activism (though the concept itself is rather shaky).
troy_tempest wrote:So as I understand, that makes legislating very difficult for the democrats? I guess that will not change even with a comfortable Obama vicory?
Is this because Obama isn't a good negotiatiator, or because the republicans don't like him and what he's trying to do?
It's a little of everything. Obama's made numerous mistakes and missed a lot of opportunities. The Republican House class in 2010 included a large number of "Tea Party" Republicans who essentially outright said that anything Obama tried to do, they'd block.
I don't doubt Obama's going to win, though. The real threat to him this cycle would have been a strong fiscal conservative and social moderate, but that kind of candidate doesn't get through Republican primaries, at least without running so far to the right on social issues that he ends up getting hammered in the general election.
Still hoping the Tea Party will form thier own party and hope fully the really crazy right wingers will all gravitate to the TP or R and leave a conservative party free of nutters for us to vote for.
biccat wrote:Mainly because instituting impeachment proceedings (their only remedy) is a poison pill, especially because Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"
Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with impeachment proceedings infringing on the power of the Executive by way of precedent.
Also, you know, Obama hasn't committed an impeachable offense. You can't impeach someone simply because you don't like them.
biccat wrote:
Note that whatever the Republicans do, the Democrats will spin it as "Republicans are Racist!"
That certainly happens, but not as often as you seem to be implying.
biccat wrote:
Hey, when one branch refuses to act, it's up to the others to take up the slack, right?
Sure. Provided they have the power (power defined broadly), and incentive, to do so.
No one wants to impeach the President for what are, essentially, day-to-day actions because it means they'll run into problems when their party gains the office.
biccat wrote:
First of all, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is basically whatever Congress says it is.
Well, its whatever Congress can reasonably argue in front of the body politic. And when Congress is extremely unpopular (pretty much always), there isn't much that Congress can reasonably argue outside the law as written. Its different when you get a popular Congressional figure doing the arguing, Newt is a good example, but even then impeachment proceedings aren't generally begun until a criminal offense is committed.
biccat wrote:
Second, I think that the recess appointment kerfuffle and/or military action in Libya could be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
I don't think either action fits a conservative reading of the list of impeachable offenses.
biccat wrote:
Second, I think that the recess appointment kerfuffle and/or military action in Libya could be sufficient grounds for impeachment.
I don't think either action fits a conservative reading of the list of impeachable offenses.
Really?
Recess appointments - ignoring the text of the Constitution that allows appointments without the Advice and Consent of the Senate only when the Senate is in recess. Precedent exists to support the interpretation that the Senate is not in recess when holding pro-forma sessions (see Harry Reid 2008, "I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made").
Libya - The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get Congressional approval for keeping troops longer than 60 days in hostilities. Congress never gave approval.
I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."
biccat wrote:
Recess appointments - ignoring the text of the Constitution that allows appointments without the Advice and Consent of the Senate only when the Senate is in recess. Precedent exists to support the interpretation that the Senate is not in recess when holding pro-forma sessions (see Harry Reid 2008, "I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma session to block the Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made").
You know that quote is Reid recounting a move to block an appointment by Bush in 2007, right?
Either way, it wasn't a crime against the state, or a misdemeanor outside the argument outlined below.
biccat wrote:
Libya - The War Powers Resolution requires the President to get Congressional approval for keeping troops longer than 60 days in hostilities. Congress never gave approval.
Obama isn't the first President to ignore it (Clinton did it too.) and every President since the Resolution took effect has called it Unconstitutional. There's a whole lot of precedent supporting the idea that the Resolution is not something to impeach a President over.
biccat wrote:
I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The only way you can fit either incident into that phrase is by way of "misdemeanors" and you would have to argue that Obama's actions rendered him subject to impeachment because they indicated he possessed a misdemeanor (archaic sense) and therefore could not serve. Which is basically arguing that he cannot serve because you don't like him.
Voting really is a waste of time. An individual vote never makes a difference on a national scale. And, even if it did, there's a very good chance you'll come to regret your decision later.
The only times its worthwhile to vote is when:
A) Its for a super local issue, so there's only going to be a few hundred people voting.
B) You're a member of the electoral college and its 1876.
C) You're a member of Congress (and, even then, it's usually a waste).
biccat wrote:
I think that a very good case can be made that either of these rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even under a conservative reading of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The only way you can fit either incident into that phrase is by way of "misdemeanors" and you would have to argue that Obama's actions rendered him subject to impeachment because they indicated he possessed a misdemeanor (archaic sense) and therefore could not serve. Which is basically arguing that he cannot serve because you don't like him.
So what you're saying is that there's no (unless impeachment is being used for political purposes) political recourse for Congress to invalidate actions of the Executive that Congress feels violates the Constitution?
When the President ignores Congress, their recourse is impeachment of the Executive.
But like I said, there is no way that this Congress would impeach the president (not just because Democrats control the Senate). Therefore the President has a virtual blank check to do whatever he thinks he can get away with (read: make a good political case for). If you thought executive overreach was a problem during Bush, I can't see how you think it's not a problem now.
Also, Clinton had at least some legislative action he could fall back on. Funny that Republicans get the flak for being warmongers.
biccat wrote:
So what you're saying is that there's no (unless impeachment is being used for political purposes) political recourse for Congress to invalidate actions of the Executive that Congress feels violates the Constitution?
There's at least two. Congress can override a veto, or pass legislation.
biccat wrote:
Therefore the President has a virtual blank check to do whatever he thinks he can get away with (read: make a good political case for).
Just like everyone else.
biccat wrote:
If you thought executive overreach was a problem during Bush, I can't see how you think it's not a problem now.
I didn't think it was a problem under Bush.
You greatly underestimate my cynicism, and overestimate my adherence to the Democrats.
biccat wrote:
Also, Clinton had at least some legislative action he could fall back on. Funny that Republicans get the flak for being warmongers.
That's because they have an incentive to call their military actions wars.
We have around 6 to 9 candidates - all crooks and smugglers. You don't know who is worse. At least your leaders promise something and do it, our leaders promise change and change never happened.
I will never go out on election in my country again. If they force me to go, I will just add God Emperor of Mankind to the list and vote.
We have around 6 to 9 candidates - all crooks and smugglers. You don't know who is worse. At least your leaders promise something and do it, our leaders promise change and change never happened.
I will never go out on election in my country again. If they force me to go, I will just add God Emperor of Mankind to the list and vote.
I think this is people's general problem with a fair number of politicians... They don't do that or they do it half-assed...
Im voting for not Obama, one of his campain promises is that he was only going to run for one term, he's done so well with campain promises why stop now?
Unless Gingrich is the nominee then ill vote for Obama. If Gingrich wins....so hows canada/england around Novemberish?
soundwave591 wrote:Im voting for not Obama, one of his campain promises is that he was only going to run for one term
Citation needed
I agree, he's broken many (most?) of his campaign promises. But, I don't remember him ever saying something like this. And, I'd think it would be big news.
^^^ doesnt matter we are reverting to our old ways, november or december, dont remember which one, had the highest borrowing in around 4 years i belive. the problem is if anyone brings this up it will be put down by people "feeling" that its gotten better
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Really Geingrich is so bad he'd chase you out of the country? I think you give the man too much credit.
I know I do but I have a serious distain for the man and dont want to live where he can affect my life even in the slightest
The Economy is better well at least in states like California where people are educated and literate. I see tons of businesses hiring and it should be easy for me to get a job when I start looking again next month. As much as Obama has disappointed me, I was always skeptical of him from the beginning, I don't see Romney making things any better. Obama isn't the problem, its all the retards in congress C-blocking the man.
Bleak_Fantasy wrote:The Economy is better well at least in states like California where people are educated and literate
California has the 2nd highest unemployment rate. Their GDP growth in 2010 was only 1.7% (US average was 1.6%). Wyoming and North Dakota grew 4% and 3.9%, respectively.
biccat wrote:
California has the 2nd highest unemployment rate. Their GDP growth in 2010 was only 1.7% (US average was 1.6%). Wyoming and North Dakota grew 4% and 3.9%, respectively.
California's present GDP growth rate is 3.1%, and its GDP growth in 2008 was .4%.
The nation's highest growth rate is 5.2% in North Dakota (booming tech industry), and its lowest growth rate is Wyoming (2.4%).
Wyoming? Really?? Im not kidding, last year, there was a BOOM in Michigan of people leaving this state FOR Wyoming. I guess they made a error in judgment eh?
KingCracker wrote:Wyoming? Really?? Im not kidding, last year, there was a BOOM in Michigan of people leaving this state FOR Wyoming. I guess they made a error in judgment eh?
I would say Perry is next to officially drop. Depending on Romney's results in SC I would guess Perry, Gingrich, and then Santorum. It is hard to say with Gingrich, as he is a bit of a camera whore so he may trying to squeeze every last once of time out of it he can.
SC is going to determine if it is realistic to stay in or not. If everyone "hates" Romney but "hates" him less than the other Rep choices, he will be the defacto nominee.
Since Gingerich is really just promoting himself and promoting his own product, Newt; the longer he stays around the better. Plus, he can gets lot's of super PAC money support.
Paul has said he is in it to get delgates for the convention and try to force changes to the party platform. Pretty interesting strategy really.
I think Perry is next, then Santorum, and Gingerich and Paul will just sort of fade away as Romney v. Obama picks up steam in the media.
Melissia wrote:If there is one good thing about this election, it's that most people are shying away from the gay-bashers...
It is heartening, I'm watching CNN atm and the title at the bottom of the screen is "Evangelists losing power in the GOP." God, I pray they are. If we could have a presidential debate that didn't involve abortion, church in schools, and gay marriage I could die happy. Instead I'll be a bitter old husk when I'm buried.
But then what would there be arguments over? We have to have something to bring out the base of each party while at the same time distracting them from deeper issues.
EDIT: I just realized the vast majority of politicians, and an essential source of my dissapointment in the last several election cycles, is the apparent inability of politicians to move beyond their respective talking points. Its not that they won't. Its that they can't. They really can't think of anything better.
AustonT wrote:
It is heartening, I'm watching CNN atm and the title at the bottom of the screen is "Evangelists losing power in the GOP."
It has been said that evangelist voters have backed away from the GOP after Bush, who basically ran on that platform, didn't do anything to help their cause.
It isn't so much that they have stopped preferring Republicans, as they simply stopped voting with the same fervency.
Standard disclaimer, I don't know if this is true, as I haven't really looked into it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:But then what would there be arguments over? We have to have something to bring out the base of each party while at the same time distracting them from deeper issues.
I frankly don't care who they vote for, don't take it the wrong way its just a true statement.
I don't want them to dominate the party I nominally belong to. So if their POWER fades in the party and the dominant faction becomes more like say the Rockefeller Republicans I'll be pleased. I'd be more pleased by the lunatic fringes breaking off into hard left/right and centre left/right parties leaving us four or more options. But you cant get everything you dream of.
AustonT wrote:I frankly don't care who they vote for, don't take it the wrong way its just a true statement.
I don't want them to dominate the party I nominally belong to. So if their POWER fades in the party and the dominant faction becomes more like say the Rockefeller Republicans I'll be pleased. I'd be more pleased by the lunatic fringes breaking off into hard left/right and centre left/right parties leaving us four or more options. But you cant get everything you dream of.
I was merely saying that, with evangelicals turning out (pun intended) at a lower rate, their power in the party will naturally diminish as it is largely based on being a highly reliable voting bloc.
