Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 731004 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Backed Huntsman once, never again
« Reply #1000 on: November 14, 2011, 05:52:14 AM »
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=4&threadid=5764615

Backed Huntsman once, never again

Member Since: Oct. 29, 2006



For Utah’s school choice movement, Jon Huntsman is a disappointment, the author writes.

Photo by AP Photo
 



In mid-2004, Jon Huntsman, who was running for Utah governor, sat in my Salt Lake City living room and asked about my political beliefs. I only care about one state-level issue, I told him: school choice.
 
“Vouchers are my main issue, too!” Huntsman replied. “Vouchers are the reason I am running for governor.” He waxed enthusiastically, “I want to go down in history as the voucher governor.” (These are direct quotes, to which I have two witnesses.)
 
On the strength of his display of conviction, I donated $75,000 to Huntsman’s campaign — becoming (I believe) his largest financial backer. In November, 2004 Huntsman won the election.
 
During the 2005 legislative session, now-Gov. Huntsman scuttled the progress of a voucher bill that had momentum in the legislature. State legislators in 2006 drafted another voucher bill that would have created the most universal, Friedmanesque school choice in the nation. Once again, to the dismay of Utah’s school choice movement, Huntsman worked behind the scenes to water it down, then signed a highly attenuated version.
 
The federal and state teachers’ unions quickly filed a referendum to withdraw it. Thus began a long, nasty, public controversy for Utah. Huntsman and I received invitations to debate teachers’ union officials and representatives across the state. I accepted. But Huntsman not only did not appear, he refused to make any public comment.
 
I sent word, asking, “I thought that this was your ‘main issue’, and ‘the reason you ran for governor’?” Huntsman replied with only a text: “Campaigning for vouchers is outside my comfort zone.”
 
This incident was not unique. Here is a similar episode that confirms how characteristic this behavior is for Huntsman. In 2005, I became aware of various sharp practices on Wall Street — including “naked short selling” — that were destabilizing our financial system. Utah ‘s legislature passed a bill that prevented Utah brokers from engaging in these manipulative practices.
 
Since most Wall Street brokerage houses have back-office operations in Utah, the bill would have curtailed the activity nationwide. Within hours of its passage, Huntsman signed and celebrated his support of the law on television and in news interviews. Wall Street lobbyists descended on Utah like locusts. They focused on Huntsman, who flipped his position in a backroom — just one day after publicly cheering the new law. Huntsman then used legal maneuvering to delay the law’s implementation. In 2007, Huntsman caused the law that he had so strongly supported to be virtually reversed.
 
In July, 2008, the financial system began imploding. Those same Wall Street banks demanded, and received, an unprecedented Securities and Exchange Commission Emergency Order, protecting them from precisely those practices that the original Utah law had sought to curtail. The Emergency Order was, in fact, far more aggressive than Utah’s law had been.
 
If Huntsman had not gone weak in the knees in 2006-2007, I have no doubt that the 2008 financial collapse would have been less severe.
 
History has given Huntsman two enormous opportunities to make a difference — but he has spent his life hugging the base. Having once been his largest donor, and having had substantial personal involvement with him, the possibility that he might be elected this nation’s president is something I now consider unthinkable.
 


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1001 on: November 14, 2011, 09:39:21 AM »
It seems Cain is dropping like a lead weight in the polls. 

"Cain is struggling with the charges of sexual harassment, and while most Republicans tend to dismiss those charges, roughly four in 10 Republicans think this is a serious matter and tend to believe the women who made those charges," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

The survey indicates that only a bare majority of Republicans tend to believe Cain, and more than a third say he should end his presidential campaign. Among the general public, Cain has a bigger credibility problem - 50% of all Americans say they tend to believe the women and only a third say they believe Cain."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/cnn-poll-gingrich-soars-cain-drops/?hpt=hp_t1

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential: Cain's woman problem
« Reply #1002 on: November 14, 2011, 11:25:43 AM »
Sorry no link until she admits it but it has come to my attention that Herman Cain's wife is an Obama Democrat.  I posted my view on that regarding the lost years of Ahnold in the Calif thread.  If he slept with the restaurant gals, had govt officials arrange it, and if occupied the other party he could have been the 42nd President.

The truth test of allegations is measured in a poll?  "50% of all Americans say..."  Not all Americans have looked carefully into this and not all Americans vote at all much less in Republican primaries in early key states.  For one thing it is called push polling and is scientifically tainted to run (Google search) "about 67,700,000 results for Cain allegations" and then ask people for their response and get a 50/50 split.  For anyone out there believing the ONE accusation known, please answer convincingly: when did YOU quit beating your wife?

Newt does not deny a 6 year relationship during marriage 2 and his numbers are surging. 

Cain has a two edged problem.  While his support is softening, his cash donations are surging.  Usually quitting the race has to do with running out of money as you run low on support.

It was THE story of the last 2 weeks, but the thigh touching allegation is not the only dynamic in the Cain candidacy or the Republican contest.  There are foreign policy questions and there are voters with doubts on economic plans and there are people who do believe him but worry about electability.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1003 on: November 14, 2011, 11:28:34 AM »
This election might be about the economy, but the president will be forced to deal with the global chaos left by Buraq. Cain is especially weak in this area.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential: Romney attacks Obama on 'Lazy Americans' comment
« Reply #1004 on: November 15, 2011, 10:28:46 PM »
Romney does two things right here.  Goes after Obama on another one of these revealing deep thoughts, and in the piece he is photographed in an American factory with his hair mussed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/romney-criticizes-obama-for-criticizing-u-s/

According to the piece he may not have the Obama quote perfect and to that I would say to the President welcome to the club.  You Mr. President and NYT distort for a living. (IMHO)

“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.”

Mr. Romney’s critique sounded a familiar theme in the Republican primary contest — that the president is out of touch with the ordinary American worker.

Mr. Romney, in an attempt to paint the president as out of touch, focused much of his speech here on reciting a litany of statements by Mr. Obama that he disagrees with.

“Before that, I think it was in October, he was saying that we have lost our inventiveness and our ambition, and before that, he was saying other disparaging things about America, and he was saying that we just weren’t working hard enough,” Mr. Romney said.

“I don’t think he gets what’s happening in this country, because the people in America are just as imaginative, just as ambitious and just as hard-working as ever,” Mr. Romney said. “In fact, we are the most productive nation in the world. The things we make per person in America exceeds that of any other country in the world. Our problem is not that the private sector isn’t productive enough. The problem is the government sector is too heavy and too burdensome, and is keeping the private sector from growing and thriving like it should.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1005 on: November 16, 2011, 09:56:58 AM »
My sympathies for Newt are of long standing record around here, yet I should mention Brit Hume's comments the other night on the Bret Baier Report:  Now that Newt is number 1 or 2, there are things that are going to get scrutiny that haven't e.g. his ethics troubles while Speaker of the House, his demise as Speaker, etc. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1006 on: November 16, 2011, 12:02:29 PM »
SUPER busy-- Would someone be kind enough to give the URL for the debates that took place while I was out of town?

TIA,
Marc


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1008 on: November 17, 2011, 12:20:08 AM »
Thank you.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1009 on: November 17, 2011, 09:21:32 AM »
Just watched the debates last night.  Overall I thought everyone did pretty well and some real differences were expressed.

Perry had a nice moment on a human level about his brain fart, but continues to underwhelm and comes across as a simplistic jingoistic Texan stereotype.

Ron Paul presented his POV without coming across as a crank.

Bachman actually sounded somewhat substantive at moments

Romney actually plainly stated that if all else failed, he would war on Iran to stop its nukes! (Did I get this right?!?)

For me, again Newt stood out head and shoulders above the rest.  Tangentially I note how utterly he has set the standard that the others now follow when it comes to how they all talk about each other.

Cranewings

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1010 on: November 17, 2011, 02:27:02 PM »
How do you guys feel about Herman Cain's recent brain fart in his interview, and his comment after it was over that he, "Isn't suppose to know anything about foreign policy?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1011 on: November 17, 2011, 02:50:03 PM »
How do you guys feel about Herman Cain's recent brain fart in his interview, and his comment after it was over that he, "Isn't suppose to know anything about foreign policy?

FAIL.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1012 on: November 17, 2011, 05:45:07 PM »
Some additional thoughts on the debate:

*Major division between Huntsman and Romney on China.  Romney got the better of it I thought.

*Though the conversation about Afpakia was serious, I don't think anyone really came to grips with the idea that we are on a trajectory to leave Afg (with pretense at continuing to train) and that the place on the planet where AQ is closest to acquiring nukes is by snatching the ones the Paks are driving down the street.

Not saying I have any better ideas, just saying , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Noonan on Cain
« Reply #1013 on: November 18, 2011, 07:43:00 AM »
There is an arresting moment in Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs in which Jobs speaks at length about his philosophy of business. He's at the end of his life and is summing things up. His mission, he says, was plain: to "build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products." Then he turned to the rise and fall of various businesses. He has a theory about "why decline happens" at great companies: "The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesman, because they're the ones who can move the needle on revenues." So salesmen are put in charge, and product engineers and designers feel demoted: Their efforts are no longer at the white-hot center of the company's daily life. They "turn off." IBM and Xerox, Jobs said, faltered in precisely this way. The salesmen who led the companies were smart and eloquent, but "they didn't know anything about the product." In the end this can doom a great company, because what consumers want is good products.

Jobs's theory of decline was elegant and simple as an iPad, and when I asked business leaders about it the past few weeks, they agreed, some with the kind of engagement that suggested maybe their own companies had experienced such troubles.

The theory applies also to our politics. America is in political decline in part because we've elevated salesmen—people good on the hustings and good in the room, facile creatures with good people skills—above people who love the product, which is sound and coherent government—"good government," as they used to say. To make that product you need a certain depth of experience. You need to know the facts, the history, how the system works, what the people want, what the moment demands.

You might say the rise of Barack Obama was the triumph of a certain sort of salesman. He didn't know the product, but he was good at selling an image of the product, at least for a while. In time even his salesmanship came to seem hollow. One of the most penetrating criticisms of Mr. Obama came again from Jobs, who supported him but was frustrated by him. He met with the president last year and urged him to move forward on visas for foreign students who earned an engineering degree in the U.S. Mr. Obama blandly replied that this was covered in his comprehensive immigration bill, which Republicans were holding up. Jobs told Mr. Isaacson: "The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done."

He does do that a lot. Nothing is ever shovel-ready with him. But leaders tell us how things will get done, how we can move forward. They can tease a small element out of a large bill, and get it passed.

Enlarge Image

CloseChad Crowe
 .Mr. Obama is a very dignified and even somber man, but he never seems to get the seriousness of the moment, the sense that we're in a gathering crisis.

But then a lot of his would-be contenders seem unserious and unresponsive, don't they? Which gets us briefly to Herman Cain, who thought he was engaged in a yearlong branding experiment and wound up a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.

Mr. Cain's famous version of the brain freeze this week wasn't really that, a brain freeze. It was more like a public service. Because he was showing us a candidate for the presidency of the United States desperately trying to retrieve a soundbite and not even trying to hide the fact that he was trying to retrieve a soundbite. Because we're kind of all in on the game, and it is a game, right?

The reporter asked him if he agreed, in retrospect, with President Obama's decisions on Libya. Mr. Cain said, "OK, Libya." Ten seconds of now famous silence ensued. Then: "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons." Another pause, and then: "Um, no, that's a different one."

He was saying: That's a different soundbite.

Later, with an almost beautiful defiance, Mr. Cain told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy." That's what staffers are for. "I want to talk to commanders on the ground. Because you run for president [people say] you need to have the answer. No you don't! No you don't!"

More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.Yes you do. It was as if history itself were unknown to him, as if Harry Truman told Douglas MacArthur, "Do what you want, cross the Yalu, but remember to tell me if we invade China."

As for the commanders on the ground, Mr. Cain clearly doesn't know something crucially important about modern American generals: that they tend to be the last to want to go to war and the last to want to leave. They're the last to want to go to war because they know what war is—chaos, destruction, always "a close-run thing." And they know the politicians who direct them to go to war often don't know this, or know it fully. But once action has been taken—once they've fought, seen their men die, planned, executed, taken and held territory—generals tend to counsel against leaving. Because they've worked with the good guys and seen the bad guys, and know what they'll do on our departure.

A candidate for president ought to be at least aware of this dynamic, and many other dynamics, too. To know little and to be proud of knowing little is disrespectful of the democratic process, and of the moment we're in.

The purpose here isn't to slam Mr. Cain but to point out that when Republicans talk like this—no, when GOP voters cheer Republicans who talk like this—it leads their opponents to smile in smug satisfaction.

A central line of Democratic attack against Republicans is that they're not really for anything, they just hate government. That, Democrats say, is why Republicans speak so disrespectfully of government as an institution, that's why they blithely dismiss the baseline requirements of a public office, as Mr. Cain does.

The charge that Republicans just hate government carries other implications—that they're stupid, that they're haters by nature, that they're cynical and merely strategic, that they enjoy having phantom foes around whom to coalesce, like cavemen warming themselves around a fire.

Republicans don't hate government, but they're alive to what human beings are tempted and even inclined to do with governmental power, which is abuse it. And so they want that power limited. It's not really that complicated. Democrats may try to paint it one way, but when they do, Republicans shouldn't help them. They should show respect for the moment. They shouldn't be unserious.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1014 on: November 18, 2011, 11:23:06 AM »
Some additional thoughts on the debate:

*Major division between Huntsman and Romney on China.  Romney got the better of it I thought.

*Though the conversation about Afpakia was serious, I don't think anyone really came to grips with the idea that we are on a trajectory to leave Afg (with pretense at continuing to train) and that the place on the planet where AQ is closest to acquiring nukes is by snatching the ones the Paks are driving down the street.

Not saying I have any better ideas, just saying , , ,

As I understand it, Romney is talking tough on the Chinese, currency manipulation (as if we don't) and other things.  Huntsman says Romney is just pandering to the tea party.  Huntsman would do nothing about these problems, therefore avoid a trade war, and he is saying I think that Romney won't do anything about it either (same policy).  Hard to land a punch with that.
----------
Over to AfghPakia... It is Huntsman who supports leave now.  His reason is that it has been long enough - in other words no reason.  Cain is more articulate here - Admits he doesn't know and would have to talk to the commanders.  The crucial issue is what to do about Pakistan, home of nukes and AQ.  It is the prolonged nature of our Afghan presence that has brought us actionable intelligence in Pakistan.  It has been our relatively small foreign aid bribery that has given us the limited good side of the two-faced treatment we get from the government of Pakistan.  There has been surprisingly little uproar over there to the continuing U.S. drone attacks and to the OBL kill operation.  As a YA post described, we have a game hunting relationship with them.

The question remains: if and when the known bad situation in Pak becomes a crisis, are we better of to be stationed with forces and equipment next door or 12,000 miles away?  I think the rest other than Huntsman and Paul get that, but fail to articulate it?  After all we put into Iraq, how do we leave without keeping at least a base?  Seems like a post WWII presence in Europe and Asia had a stabilizing effect.


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1015 on: November 18, 2011, 11:36:28 AM »
After all we put into Iraq, how do we leave without keeping at least a base?  Seems like a post WWII presence in Europe and Asia had a stabilizing effect.


The impression I get is that I don't think either Iraq or Afghanistan want us to stay.  It seems to me we are being pushed out.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1016 on: November 20, 2011, 09:16:45 PM »
On an iPad in Chicag; difficult to type.  JDN, IMHO you have been deceived.  lots of folks wated us to stay in Iraq, but none are wiling to say s because for four years now Baraqv has made it clear he wants us out.



JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1017 on: November 21, 2011, 06:13:00 AM »
On an iPad in Chicag; difficult to type.  JDN, IMHO you have been deceived.  lots of folks wated us to stay in Iraq, but none are wiling to say s because for four years now Baraqv has made it clear he wants us out.


Who?

Perhaps "lots of folks wanted us to stay in Iraq", but I don't think the Iraqi's themselves wanted us to stay.  That is the key.
Even Iraq's President, Foreign Minister and their Legislature i.e. the people of Iraq kept insisting that we should leave ASAP, basically saying we are not wanted.

As I have said, and frankly I think a lot of Americans agree, I'm not sure why we keep fighting wars where we are not wanted and not appreciated. 
American lives and billions upon billions of dollars lost; for what?

Don't blame Obama.  Frankly, I'm grateful we're out.



"The U.S. will pull its last troops from Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama announced Friday, after Washington and Baghdad failed to reach an agreement over a dispute on the legal immunity of the estimated 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers expected to remain in the country after December 31. Instead, the U.S. will leave about 160 military personnel to guard the embassy and manage the military relationship, over 4,000 private State Department security contractors, and a significant CIA presence. About 40,000 troops currently remain in Iraq in a training capacity.

The date of the December 31, 2011 pull-out was set in motion by President Bush in 2008, when he approved a deal calling for U.S. troops to withdraw by the upcoming date."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1018 on: November 21, 2011, 06:40:16 AM »
George Will was very tough on Newt yesterday:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/20/george_will_on_newt_gingrich_hes_the_classic_rental_politician.html

"Gingrich's is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that it embodies everything that is disagreeable about modern Washington. He's the classic rental politician," George Will said on "This Week" today.

"People think that his problem is his colorful personal life. He'll hope that people concentrate on that rather than on, for example, ethanol. Al Gore has recanted ethanol. Not Newt Gingrich who served the ethanol lobby, Industrial policy of the sort that got us Solyndra, he's all for it. Freddie Mac, he says, hired him as a historian. He's not a historian."

(He prefaced this with his weekly disclosure that Mrs. Will is advising the Perry campaign.)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1019 on: November 21, 2011, 06:56:05 AM »
It's still Bush's fault.  I know he gets the pension and secret service attention, I hope he is still getting boots on the ground updates before he makes his final determination - 3 years gone by and counting.

The Bush 'agreement', FYI, was "subject to possible further negotiations".  The negotiations to maintain a base, a fortress over the horizon as Democrats used to call it, a readiness to quickly address future threats, apparently never happened... because first and foremost this is about American political considerations now ahead of future American or global security interests, IMHO.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1020 on: November 21, 2011, 07:14:21 AM »
What do you do if "free" Iraq has stated very clearly and unequivocally that they simply don't want us there?
 
Further, Iraq felt so strongly about our timely withdrawal they they refused to grant legal immunity to any of our remaining troops; a condition
that I am sure Bush would have insisted upon as well.  We hardly want our soldiers being charged with murder for collateral damage for example.

Combine this with an American public who overwhelmingly wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?  Not many left who count who want us to remain.

Bush's fault?  Heck, I give him credit.  Bush started the ball rolling to get us out.  Obama finished it and I'm, as well as most Americans, are glad we are getting out.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1021 on: November 21, 2011, 07:43:19 AM »
Credit and blame are sides of the same coin; it is 3 years out.

"What do you do if "free" Iraq has stated very clearly and unequivocally that they simply don't want us there?"

Things like negotiations, leverage, leadership and diplomacy come to mind.  None of those were needed if your only goal was to read polls at home and exit no matter the conditions or ramifications.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Will doesn't like Mitt either
« Reply #1022 on: November 21, 2011, 08:48:05 AM »
Mitt Romney, the pretzel candidate
George F. Will, Published: October 28
The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.
 
.Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.

In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?

Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel?

A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect.

Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused.

His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?

A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?

georgewill@washpost.com


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1023 on: November 22, 2011, 09:20:40 AM »
Yes, G. Will is very tough on Romney.  Ethanol subsidies probably aren't the best test for purity on principles.  Pawlenty, author of Courage to Stand, said in his announcement speech (in Iowa) that he would end subsidies to ethanol.  Later he said he didn't get an applause for that line - how's he doing now?  Perry says no federal subsidies for any of the energies.  Also not surging, each for different reasons.

People think conservatives have a purity test.  What a joke.  We are look for candidates with views we agree with, just like centrists and liberals do.  We would like to find one candidate who shares our principles AND can stand at least even with the incumbent on competence, moral integrity and communications skills.  That should not be too much to ask.

The polls opening in a little over a month, and it will come down to electability.  Romney may seem like a wishy washy, poll watching, principle lacking mish mash of positions held, a 'recidivist reviser of his principles', but he is still in the strongest position.

Will's point that Romney is becoming less and less electable is interesting.  The reason we searched through all these others is that a clear contrast in direction would make for a better chance at governing and solving our problems.  Technocratic competency questions bring it back to the person, not the direction.  Obama will save the day though by making even Romney look like a sharp turn toward conservatism.  With all I find lacking in Romney, he is not really another Dukakis. 
-----------
Looking again at those already written off, Glen Beck had Michele Bachmann on a radio interview for 45 minutes yesterday and said he agreed with every word she said.  She is probably the most connected of any of them on foreign policy - she at least receives intelligence from her committee assignments - but she has no executive experience and this propensity to go running off on wrong, small things. 
-----------
The always interesting Dennis Miller was on Leno last night.  He liked Cain a while back but didn't find him ready enough, now leaning toward Romney, and he likes Gingrich.  He said of Gingrich that people should see the video of his daughter - the story about the hospital room was not true, but that piece does not remove Newt's baggage, political and personal. 
-----------
Rich Perry on a Fox panel, link below, is worth a watch.  He starts with his deer in the headlights smile but follows with pretty good substance.  Krauthammer asks him an excellent question on his tax proposal, why not put a sunset provision on the old code.  Instead of fake some answer, he said that is a pretty good idea and would consider it, and went on to show how they used a sunset provision elsewhere to repatriate American assets back into the economy.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/21/rick_perry_goes_on_the_special_report_panel.html  I think he might be next to get a second look and make a mini-comeback.  That doesn't make his flaws and earlier flops go away either.

One of these folks will soon be the nominee.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1024 on: November 22, 2011, 09:24:02 AM »
I just gave another $25 to Newt.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1025 on: November 22, 2011, 09:36:20 AM »
I just gave another $25 to Newt.

They say admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting better.....   :wink:

Is there a 12 step group for this?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential - We need a Democrat nominee too!
« Reply #1026 on: November 22, 2011, 10:06:26 AM »
I had some fun back when his approval rating was about 70% predicting that Barack Obama would not be the nominee of his own party.  Names like Evan Bayh and Jim Webb came up.  I would oppose these too but for the party of JFK these choices are not as anti-capitalism, anti-freedom and anti-growth as the incumbent today. 

Instead those who see his political weakness think the perfect answer to their cause is his ideological clone Hillary Clinton.   :-(  That is not what I meant! 
------
I saw my first Obama 2012 bumper sticker this weekend in the city of Liberal Lakes.  The new sticker doesn't say Obama-Biden; no running mate is mentioned.  It didn't say Obama either - that name isn't polling well either.   It only says 2012 with the Pepsi-like logo for the Obama hope change marketing concept in the place of the zero.  Very concise, but is President Zero really the marketing image he will spend a billion dollars to reinforce?

He wishes he had results at zero to run on...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Mitt vs Newt?
« Reply #1027 on: November 22, 2011, 12:31:42 PM »
I too still like Newt.  "NA" stands for Newt anonymous.  Last night saw Mitt.  While the substance of what he says is correct he just doesn't take it to the opposition like Newt.  Like he still has the need to soften his tone when speaking about Brock, with phrase like "he means well".  Get rid of that.  He doesn't mean well.  He is out to get rid of America as we know it.   And he is not honest about it.  Why keep calling him a nice guy who is just misinformed.  Brock is well aware of what he is doing and he is fully aware he is not telling us the truth.

I agree with Crafty here.  Newt don't back down.  I want to see him and Mitt "duke it out" and lets see who can make the case better for stark choice between Brock's one world government socialism and America as we know it.   

Mitt just doesn't inspire me.  Yet it ain't about me.  It is about the independents.  So who can get their attention better, Mitt or Newt?  As always they decide the election.  So I am a pragmatist in the end.   

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1028 on: November 22, 2011, 02:44:51 PM »
My feeling about Mitt is that there is a 50% chance he could be a great President.  No one has come forward offering a 100% chance.  My hope is that Mitt's flip flop period had to do with wanting to bee elected in Massachusetts.  That counts against him in terms of integrity and in terms of risk of bad policies later but at his core my hope is that he more conservative and more pro-free enterprise than he is showing.  I can't stand his rich guilt stand on marginal rates.  No way should we let progressivity get worse in the tax code get worse as Mitt would allow, and I say that looking up from the lowest bracket.

Newt to me presents risks too, perhaps greater, both in terms of jumping around on policies and that his personal story will keep some people from voting for him.  He is more controversial I think especially as you move toward the center and gives the left more to tee off on.  I liked that he was the best debater.  I like that Crafty stood up and took a stand for him.  Now I don't like as much that Newt is saying he is the best debater; that comes across better with others saying it.  Another debate tonight and he will have quite a chance to shine because he has given for more thought to all the foreign policy questions.  Besides setting a clearer direction he can use that to be far harder on Pres. Obama.   Obama has had a couple of successes.  Those don't excuse the foreign policy nightmare that marks the rest his Presidency.  VDH has covered in nicely in his 'Works and Days' column and Newt is capable of that.

If he is the nominee, I think Mitt's debate capabilities will look better against Pres. Obama than he did against the Republican challengers.  It is an easier contrast to draw and he has so carefully kept from letting himself be painted as extremist.

Newt is back on private accounts for SS.  A great idea with probably lousy timing.  Of course those private accounts will require an individual mandate...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris on the debate: Newt won!
« Reply #1029 on: November 23, 2011, 09:16:10 AM »
Great debate last night-- great format, great questions, great performances by most of the candidates.  Perry is clearly in way over his head.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1030 on: November 23, 2011, 10:08:28 AM »
The debate was good.  The candidates are all better.  The formatt seemed improved with more leeway on allowing candidates to speak longer and answer each other rather than 30 second sound bites.  Less "gotcha" stuff I thought. 

Mitt looked great. Strong on defense.  Newt too. 

MSLSD is in full Democratic machine mode every day and night attacking the Rep candidates.  CNN gloriously points out about Newt and his money endeavors.  Not a peep about GE, MSLSD and the WH.   

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1031 on: November 25, 2011, 07:28:11 AM »
An interesting take by a well known conservative....

"Herman Cain, Erickson wrote, has no shot, because female voters will desert him in the face of the sexual misconduct charges that are eclipsing his campaign.

“He’s down at least 10 points with women in Iowa. He’s falling even further and doesn’t even realize it,” Erickson said. “He’s largely been emboldened by a conservative media that is so used to standing by its men that too few are telling Herman that he is now at the point where he must actually sit and answer questions whether he wants to or not and whether he feels maligned or not and whether I think he should have to or not.”

Similarly, he said, Newt Gingrich’s tangled marital history (three wives) dooms him with the same voting bloc."

“Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process,” Erickson wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-erickson-romney-20111108,0,2321512.story?obref=obnetwork

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Cain
« Reply #1032 on: November 25, 2011, 09:33:26 AM »
I think a lot of people, including women, see through the politics of personal destruction at work against Cain.  IMHO his problem is he just does not seem fully ready for prime time on a number of issues, particularly foreign affairs.

His initial support was as the anti-Romney in the wake of Perry's collapse, which came in the wake of Bachman's collapse triggered by the contrast with Perry's executive experience and her own not-ready-for-prime-time comments.   

Now he is being measured by the standard being set by Newt, , , and an improving Romney.

Anyway, here's the profile on Cain from today's WSJ: 

By DOUGLAS A. BLACKMON And NEIL KING JR.
When Herman Cain entered Atlanta's Morehouse College in the fall of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. had just delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. During his first semester, four black girls were killed in a Birmingham, Ala., church bombing. Young African-Americans flocked to Dr. King's call for nonviolent action or its more radical offshoots.

 
ZumaPress
 
Herman Cain at Morehouse in 1966.
.Mr. Cain steered clear of the strife boiling around him. The son of a chauffeur to the former chairman of Coca-Cola Co., Mr. Cain pursued his own self-advancement with steady focus.

"I wasn't determined to make social change," Mr. Cain said in an interview. "I wanted to earn some change…I wanted to make some money."

Mr. Cain's plain-spoken charm has shaken up the Republican presidential nomination contest and pushed him high in the polls, a surprise success diminished only slightly by allegations of sexual harassment relating to his lobbying work in the 1990s. Yet for many, he remains an enigmatic figure defined by his time as a businessman and talk-radio host. Left unclear is how the events of his life shaped his political beliefs.

The answer, based on interviews with Mr. Cain and his classmates at the historically black Morehouse, can be found in a value system common among an older generation of African-Americans: work hard, seize every educational opportunity, always go to church, never get arrested and rely on no one but yourself.

Mr. Cain's closest brush with the turmoil of that era, based on his own recollection, was when he and a group of high-school friends almost refused an order to go the back of a bus, but ultimately complied.

 
ZumaPress
 
Mr. Cain with fellow high-school senior Martha Jones in 1963.
.For many who suffered some of the worst of the South's racial abuses, blocked economically by Jim Crow laws and excluded from the state Democratic parties in the region, that single-minded preoccupation with self-improvement was a defining characteristic.

Until the middle decades of the 20th century, African-Americans in the South who found ways to vote were generally aligned with the Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln.

By the end of the 1960s, the vast majority of African-Americans had become committed Democrats in response to the national party's embrace of civil-rights legislation. But vestiges of the GOP tradition remained, especially in urban areas such as Atlanta.

"A lot of us in the South at the time were Republicans," said Ed Rutland, a classmate of Mr. Cain's. "My father was a Republican. In fact, I was a Republican."

 
ZumaPress
 
Mr. Cain at age 5 in Atlanta, where his family moved in the late 1940s.
.Mr. Cain's credo of self-determination is the core message of his campaign—a promise to solve the country's most complex problems with what he sees as uncomplicated common sense, such as his 9-9-9 tax plan. He believes that, with hard work, every person can become a "CEO of self" and achieve great personal wealth.

On the campaign trail, he has defied what he perceives as political correctness, sparring with critics who questioned his lack of involvement in civil rights and battling reports that he sexually harassed several women in the late 1990s, some of whom were employees. Giving no quarter, he has castigated his accusers and the journalists who dug into the claims.

"The media's rules say you have to act in a certain way," Mr. Cain wrote in a blog posting earlier this month, referring to how he had responded to the accusations. "I am well aware of these rules. And I refuse to play by them."

When asked during a lengthy interview in late October to describe his moment of political awakening, Mr. Cain turned the conversation to his economic aspirations. He was 16 years old and learned he would have to earn at least $10,000 a year to qualify for an American Express card.

 
Morehouse College archives
 
Mr. Cain in his college yearbook in 1965.
."And I remember thinking to myself, 'One day, I want to make $20,000 a year,'" he said. "So my goal materialistically was I wanted two American Express cards."

By his own account, Mr. Cain didn't formulate his political views until he was in his late 50s, after two decades working his way up the career ladder at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury Co. and Godfather's Pizza. From there he became a restaurant-industry lobbyist, a motivational speaker and a talk-radio host.

Mr. Cain said he can't recall being in discussions about civil-rights activities while at Morehouse, or attending sit-ins and demonstrations in Atlanta during his high-school and college years. The presidential contender said he can't remember whom he voted for in some presidential elections from the 1970s, and that he didn't register as a Republican for another three decades.

"I didn't even know what a conservative or liberal was," he said of his college years.

"Herman was a good student," said one of his classmates, William Howard, now a Baptist pastor in Newark, N.J. "But he was not particularly outspoken on any of the great issues that were confronting us at the time."

Enlarge Image

CloseZumaPress
 
Mr. Cain at Disney World in 1971.
.Both of Mr. Cain's parents left poor farms in the Tennessee and Georgia countryside at 18 years of age. His father, Luther Cain Jr., moved the family from Memphis to archly segregated Atlanta in the late 1940s, when Herman Cain was two years old.

His mother worked as a maid. His father got jobs as a janitor, a barber and finally as the driver and personal assistant to Robert W. Woodruff, the legendary Coca-Cola executive and one of the most powerful business figures in the South until his death in 1985.

That job changed the family's fortunes. It also had a formative impact on the young Herman Cain.

Mr. Woodruff periodically made gifts of cash and Coca-Cola stock to Luther Cain, who worked for the Coke magnate from the late 1950s until around the time of his own death in the 1970s. Breaking into a bass imitation of the CEO, Mr. Cain describes how the family got help paying for his college education: "Luther, I hear your son is over at Morehouse. Here's a little something to help you out with that tuition." Some close relatives of Mr. Woodruff said in interviews they are supporting Mr. Cain's presidential campaign.

Enlarge Image

Close.Mr. Cain said Mr. Woodruff's wealth impressed on him how powerfully the free market rewards success. His dad's work as a well-paid servant also left its mark. "I wanted to be comfortable differently," he said. "That's what inspired me to make good grades. That's what inspired me to go to college."

During Mr. Cain's high-school years, Atlanta was ablaze with civil-rights demonstrations, the most dramatic of which were student marches and sit-ins aimed at desegregating lunch counters and department stores. Large numbers of young people were arrested, but Mr. Cain said his parents told him to stay away—guidance many young African-Americans got from their parents and teachers at the time.

In the city-bus incident, Mr. Cain recalls, he and some high-school friends were told by the driver to move to the back as white passengers piled aboard.

"We were just old enough to be belligerent enough to refuse," Mr. Cain said. "But we decided we didn't want to go to jail. One day we wanted to get a good job. We didn't want to give the cops an opportunity to shoot one of us saying we were being disorderly…So reluctantly we moved to the back of the bus."

By the time he was at Morehouse, Mr. Cain worried he might disappoint his father's boss. "Mr. Woodruff wouldn't have been too pleased if Luther's son was in jail because he was throwing bottles and demonstrating," he said.

Mr. Cain realized he had arrived less well equipped for college than many other students, despite having graduated second in his high-school class. He took remedial reading and worked weekends at an auto-repair shop and stocking shelves at a grocery store his dad opened as an investment. He earned a reputation as a striver who was sensitive about his economic status but largely indifferent to the civil-rights drama around him.

"Herman's thoughts were always about making himself better than he was," said Walter Burns, a classmate who is now a pastor at a Baptist church outside Atlanta. "He abhorred his economic station."

Roswell Jackson, a retired book salesman in Teaneck, N.J., and Mr. Cain's closest friend at Morehouse, recalls a man who was gregarious, friendly and a moderate drinker. "Herman would be among the first on the dance floor, whether he happened to be a good dancer or not," he said.

Some Morehouse graduates have criticized Mr. Cain for being disengaged from the civil-rights movement. Horace Bohannon Jr., who sometimes shared lecture notes with Mr. Cain as an underclassman and later became a follower of Stokely Carmichael and his "black power" movement, said he perceived in Mr. Cain a disdain for students who became more deeply involved in the turmoil of those days. "We were hellbent on changing this society and the structure of the South," he said. "There was sort of a resentment toward us by Herman."

But others from that era say that many students at the school focused on preparing for careers, and that some faculty members discouraged open participation in marches and similar activity.

"Most of the Morehouse fellows did not participate," said Wesley D. Clement, a classmate of Mr. Cain who is now an eye surgeon in Charlotte, N.C. "Your main target and goal was to prepare yourself for business and life. Not that we were ignorant of what was going on or didn't favor what was going on. But we were not involved in the things that some people would have called more radical at that time."

Mr. Cain said he was far from oblivious to the country's racial inequities and that without the civil-rights movement his career options would have been limited.

Mr. Cain avoided some of the most heated moments of the 1960s, and he said his recollections of that era are hazy. He said he doesn't recall being aware of Dr. King, a 1948 graduate of Morehouse, ever visiting the campus, including a convocation during Mr. Cain's senior year at which Dr. King was the featured speaker and the glee club performed. Mr. Cain sang baritone for the glee club all four years at Morehouse.

In his 2011 book, "This is Herman Cain!", the candidate appears to mix up facts relating to the desegregation of the universities of Georgia and Alabama. Mr. Cain also mistakenly said in the October interview that a high-profile protest against a restaurant owned by Lester Maddox, a white supremacist and later Georgia governor, occurred before he arrived on campus, rather than while he was there.

"All of that preceded me being in college," Mr. Cain said. "I never participated in anything like that."

A spokesman for Mr. Cain said later that Mr. Cain stands by his recollections.

After Morehouse, Mr. Cain took a job as a civilian ballistics analyst with the Navy. While working there, the federal government paid for him to pursue a graduate degree at Purdue University, where he earned a master's in computer science.

Five years after graduating, he returned to Atlanta and entered corporate life with a lower-management job his dad helped secure for him at Coca-Cola. Fearing he would forever be known there as the son of Mr. Woodruff's chauffeur, Mr. Cain followed his boss to a job at Pillsbury in 1978.

He was soon running a division of Burger King, then was put in charge of reviving Pillsbury's wobbly subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza, which he eventually went on to buy with a number of partners.

Mr. Cain was such a rarity as a black man in the upper echelons of the restaurant business that a 1989 article in Restaurant News called him "the Jackie Robinson of the food-service chain industry."

He said he drew few political interpretations from his career, except that his success demonstrated to him that racial barriers for African-Americans had largely fallen away. He regarded his achievements simply as proof of what personal focus and hard work could accomplish. "I was totally apolitical," he said.

That began to change when he was living in Omaha, Neb., where Godfather's is based. In 1988, Mr. Cain believed a push in Congress to raise the minimum wage imperiled his efforts to rescue the company. "I'm going, 'Wait a minute. I fixed all the stuff inside the company that I can fix, and now I'm going to get hit upside the head by the government?'" he said.

Then came 1994, the year after Democrats passed an income-tax surcharge to reduce the deficit. He says he was stunned when his personal tax bill increased. "It was just a sneak-a-tax,'" he said. "It only affected people of a certain category…That's why I became a conservative."

Mr. Cain said he remained a registered independent until three years later, when the late Republican leader Jack Kemp of New York invited him one afternoon to a political event at Sylvia's, the famed soul-food restaurant in Harlem.

When the group arrived, Mr. Cain said, "this big muscular black guy yelled, 'Black Republicans? You guys must be Uncle Toms.'"

"That statement haunted me for days," he said. As soon as he got back to Omaha, he registered as a Republican for the first time.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1033 on: November 25, 2011, 09:58:22 AM »
Erick Erickson isn't exactly a highly regarded analyst, but I heard him make that same case as a guest host on someone else's radio show recently.  The interest uber-Lib James Oliphant' has in it is to find the most defeatist right-wing view and spread it around.

Of course Cain has an issue with the women's vote while these charges fester and doubts against electability cast to everyone else.  That doesn't mean we won't learn more about the veracity of those charges before votes are cast - and as Crafty already pointed out - other considerations.

Of course Gingrich has a 3 wives with overlap problem.  Isn't that part of the problem Rudy the previous election cycle frontrunner ran into.  We are not breaking any new ground here.

"Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee."  - Again back to conventional wisdom.  I have written this multiple times as well.

"And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process"

This was the point of significance that Erickson is making and it is severely flawed.  Erickson is saying that Romney is so centrist that no contrast can be made in the general election with Pres. Obama.  That is wrong on 59 points in economics.  It is wrong on the focus and direction of foreign policy.  And it is wrong on ObamaCare.  Obama will never take a step back on Obamacare and Romney will repeal it the first day after the swearing in ceremony.  Every voter will have to deal with that contrast and current polling I've seen is 47% top 41% in favor of repeal.  Romney will follow that with every Republican concession out there like verbal support for state solutions and federal laws protecting pre-existing conditions, opening markets across state lines etc. to attract moderates and centrists while the tea party types would be cast wanting to kill off the poorest among us.

Conservatives are wishing for a conglomerate candidate that doesn't exist.  Maybe a Michele Bachmann with no foot in mouth problem and Rick Perry's executive branch governing experience, a Hermann Cain who also had 8 years as Secretary of State or Chair of the Joint Chiefs and no accusations, a Rick Perry governing record in someone who could articulate a thought in front of a camera, a Newt who lived the family life of Romney or a Romney who got elected in a blue state with the domestic economic views of Ron Paul.  Folks, that person doesn't exist.  I noticed early on that Redstate.com, where Erickson is editor/blogger, was in the tank for Rick Perry.  I also had high hopes for Rick Perry.  Then I had medium hopes for Rick Perry, now little hope for Rick Perry.  I also held out medium hope for Tim Pawlenty.  How we all deal with our own disappointments along the way is our own problem, but to say that Mitt Romney is not position to mount a serious general election challenge and stake out ground to the right of this opponent is pure nonsense.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1034 on: November 25, 2011, 10:38:41 AM »
MSM is in full swing doing everything they can to delegitamize the Rep field.

CNN is every day I turn it on spending inordinate amounts of time trying to debunk everything the candidates say.

You know the "keeping em honest" pitch.  As though they are the final arbitars of truth and justice.

If that were the case they would be debunking Brock every single day - but they don't.

We NEVER hear from the MSM any criticism of the Dem party unless they include the Republicans in the criticism.  It is never the party they go after.  When that is the case it becomes all the politicians.

Cain has fallen in the polls more for his poor handling of allegations and indeed more because he is obviously not prepared to be a President - I doubt it is because of the allegations themselves.
 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1035 on: November 25, 2011, 11:57:51 AM »
"MSM is in full swing doing everything they can to delegitamize the Rep field."
-------------
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/24/showbiz/nbc-bachmann-apology/?hpt=hp_bn7

NBC has apologized to Rep. Michele Bachmann after the house band for "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" played an inappropriate song during her appearance on the show Monday... apologized for what happened and called the incident "not only unfortunate but also unacceptable,"...the show's band played the song "Lyin' Ass Bitch" by Fishbone as Bachmann first appeared on stage...
-------------
Just a misunderstanding, I'm sure the unfortunate choice of songs is no sign of institutional bias.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1036 on: November 25, 2011, 12:14:01 PM »
I think Limbaugh wondered what the reaction would be if "Ilike big butts" had been played when Moochelle Obozo waddled onstage.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Du Pont: Hillary for VP?
« Reply #1037 on: November 25, 2011, 02:15:01 PM »
Speaking of big butts , , ,


By PETE DU PONT
The coming political year, with presidential, House and Senate elections, will be one of the most interesting (and important) ones we have seen in a long while. The main challenge President Obama faces is persuading voters to re-elect him in spite of the disastrous results of his economic policies.

The declining economy has hit people on both ends of the economic spectrum, with the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million of income declining from from 400,000 back in 2007 to just 235,000 in 2009, and the number of people 16 older who have been unemployed over a year going from an average of 1.3 million in the last three recessions to 4.3 million in 2010. The Obama economy is the worst America has seen in four decades, with payroll employment today 5% lower than it was 41 months ago. Over the past three years, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been higher than at any time since World War II, adding $4 trillion to our national debt.

So what to do if running for re-election in these terrible times? Many people have asked if I think President Obama will be re-elected. No, as long as the Republicans pick a viable candidate, he stands likely to be defeated. But it seems possible that the Democrat Party will pre-emptively decide that the time has come for some fresh thinking about its ticket.

Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen have urged the president to forgo re-election for the good of his party and the nation. But those don't seem like factors that would necessarily influence this president. Instead we might see him decide to switch to a vice presidential candidate who will be stronger, better, and change the thinking of a majority of the Democrats--namely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last December a USA Today/Gallup poll found Mrs. Clinton to be the most admired woman in politics. A poll in March found that 66% viewed Mrs. Clinton favorably and just 31% unfavorably. Mr. Obama's numbers, which have since declined, were 54% and 43%; Vice President Joe Biden's, 46% to 41%. An October Time poll of last October pitted Mrs. Clinton against Republican candidates. She led Mitt Romney by 17%, Rick Perry by 26% and Herman Cain by 22%. Mr. Obama's leads in the same poll were 3%, 12% and 12%, respectively.

Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, has observed that 45 percent of the people who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance view Mrs. Clinton favorably. It is fair to say that Mrs. Clinton's addition to the ticket would be a substantial gain for President Obama that he badly needs next November, since she is, as Mr. Starr notes, a member of the part of his administration that has the highest approval rating, and more important she has not at all been a part of the disastrous economic policies that have caused the Obama drop in popularity. Even better for Election Day, she would gain support among older white voters, who did not support Mr. Obama very much in 2008. Mr. Starr also cites a Suffolk University Florida poll that shows that Mrs. Clinton on the Obama ticket would win Florida for the two of them, even if Sen. Marco Rubio is the Republican's vice presidential candidate.

One more advantage: With Mrs. Clinton comes her husband, who would very much want to get his wife elected, and also might be interested in a position in the Obama-Clinton administration.

Add in that the Washington Democrats already see a political disaster coming: the Senate as well as the House is likely to have a Republican majority. Only two Republican Senate incumbents are vulnerable: the appointed Dean Heller in Nevada and elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts. By contrast, of the 23 Democrat-held seats up for re-election, political forecaster Larry Sabato sees six as safe for the Democrats, and two as likely GOP pickups. That will mean that Republicans need only to win one to four of the remaining 15 to take control of the Senate along with its House majority.

So will President Obama make the vice presidential switch? While it is not unprecedented, it is certainly unusual, and it would likely be seen in some quarters as a desperate act of a weakened president. But politicians in general, and this president especially, show a willingness to do such things if absolutely necessary to save an election. If it is just plain essential to Obama's winning re-election next November, it will soon come to pass.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
As mentioned before
« Reply #1038 on: November 25, 2011, 03:00:40 PM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76AjbMvo3E[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y76AjbMvo3E

Sir Rush a Lot

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Great moments in presidential leadership
« Reply #1039 on: November 26, 2011, 08:24:46 PM »
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/11/pakistan-tells-us-to-vacate-air-base-as.html

November 26, 2011
"Pakistan Tells U.S. to 'Vacate' Air Base as Border Strike Inflames Tensions."
 
"... Islamabad had already ordered the country's border crossings into Afghanistan closed, blocking off NATO supply lines, after the strike."

MEANWHILE: "Obama and family take in basketball game, chat with Bill Murray." He did comment on current events, noting that the tentative deal to end the NBA lockout seems to be "a good deal."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris
« Reply #1040 on: November 27, 2011, 03:40:36 PM »
THE SHAPE OF THE PRES RACE

By DICK MORRIS

Published on DickMorris.com on November 27, 2011
 
To understand the Republican Presidential race, grasp first that the party is one of
ideas.  One is born into the Democratic Party.  If you are black or Latino or poor
or gay or become a single mother, your partisan identity is often spoken for.  But
you become a member of the Republican Party by agreeing with certain ideas.  So
there are several distinct groupings within the Republican Party merged together by
shared ideals but with sharply different priorities and perspectives.  Imagine that
each sector of the party is like a division in the NFL or in Major League Baseball,
with its own separate playoffs or pennant race and its own separate champion.  Then,
the winners of the divisions meet in the primaries.  We are still in the pre-runoff
phase.
 
Start with the Economic Conservative Division.  These folks are deeply committed to
free market economics.  Often from big companies and corporations, they tend to be
well off and to believe in capitalism and oppose redistribution of wealth.  In their
division, the candidates were Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, Chris
Christie, and Mitch Daniels.  Mitt is the only one left.  He is the champ of that
division which guarantees him a berth in the runoffs.
 
Closely allied to them is the Establishment Republican Division.  This was the group
that rallied to Bush-43 and impelled him to the nomination.  They have to choose
between Romney, Perry, and Gingrich.  They can't back Cain or Bachmann because both
are too much outsiders.  Perry has disappointed them so they are going largely for
Mitt.  But some will probably end up for Newt.
 
Then go to the Evangelical Division. They are motivated by religious and social
issues like abortion, gay marriage and such.  The candidates were Mike Huckabee,
Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry.  Huck didn't run.
First Bachmann surged, then Perry and then Cain.  But Cain fell back because of the
sex harassment charges.  This block can't support Romney (although they will if he
is nominated) because he is Mormon and flip flopped on abortion.  They are reluctant
to back Gingrich because of his personal issues.  So they must choose among Perry,
Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum.  They haven't chosen yet.  But they will.  One of
these candidates has to be in the runoffs because this group has to have a
candidate.
 
Then we go to the national security people.  They are focused on defense, support
the war in Afghanistan and back tough protections against terrorism.  Their possible
candidates are Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Romney, or Santorum.  They won't back Cain
because of his inexperience and they disagree with Paul and Huntsman.  Gingrich's
strong debate performance turned them on, but Romney is making a strong play for
their votes.  Santorum could gain traction, but likely not.  Perry wants their
votes, but he hurt himself by his lack of familiarity with the issues. They will
probably split between Newt and Mitt.  Between their votes and those of the party
establishment Newt can pick up, it virtually assures Gingrich of a runoff birth.
 
Then there are the Tea Party folks.  They focus on the federal deficit, the national
debt, reining in spending, holding down taxes, opposing Obamacare, and reducing
government regulation.  They had, initially, to choose among Daniels, Christie,
Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann.  They won't support Romney because of
Romneycare in Massachusetts (although they would if he is the nominee).  With
Christie and Daniels out, they first went Bachmann because of her battle in Congress
to cut spending.  Then they were seduced by Perry but his immigration position
turned them off so they went for Cain.  Now they are worried about Cain and are
looking at Gingrich or Bachmann or maybe still Cain.
 
So that's the state of play.  Romney has an assured runoff berth but nobody else
does.  If Newt doesn't stumble over his consulting practice or personal issues, he
will likely make the runoff as the National Security candidate with good support
from the Party Establishment and Tea Party Divisions. 
 
But that would still leave the Evangelicals out there.  They can't back Romney due
to his religion or Newt because of his personal issues.  So they will back someone
else - Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Santorum.  And a lot of Tea Party people - who
overlap with the Evangelicals - will also be looking at these candidates.  One of
these four is going to be in the final mix.
 
Then it will likely be a three way fight: Romney, Gingrich, and an Evangelical/Tea
Party candidate to be named later.
 
This is the context of the Iowa caucuses.  It is first and foremost a way to sort
out the Evangelical/Tea Party conundrum and come up with their candidate.  That's
what January 3rd will be all about.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1041 on: November 27, 2011, 08:37:54 PM »
Morris set up that framework earlier in the year.  It's muddled now but I agree with his conclusion, but a 3rd player is not guaranteed.  Mitt and Newt are in the final group and the others are out IMO unless Perry starts acting like a winning candidate and to go from single digits sinking to a win Iowa.

Newt and Mitt could narrow the field by going 1 and 2 in Iowa and NH; either one could wrap it up early by winning the first 3. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1042 on: November 27, 2011, 11:56:09 PM »


Certainly DM has a good record as a pollster (thought quite a bit more superficial grasp of the other issues upon which he now feels qualified to pontificate) but I think you make better sense than he does here.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1043 on: November 28, 2011, 03:21:50 AM »
"I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."

I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?


 :roll:

So, you misquoted me to make a point.  Cool.  Let's get this straight, again.  I did not vote for Obama.  I won't be voting for Obama.  What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case.

Sex sells, GM.  It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal.  It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front.  It isn't.  And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant.  Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of.  I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out.  And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it. 

You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time.  Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears????


http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/

It’s been four weeks since Politico broke the story of accusations against Herman Cain

 Posted by William A. Jacobson   Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 7:54pm

 

On Sunday evening, October 30, Politico broke the story that two women had complained about Herman Cain while at the National Restaurant Association.  In that first week, Politico ran several dozen stories about the accusations without telling us what the accusations were, while characterizing the accusations as sexual harassment.
 
During the subsequent three weeks, the name of one of the accusers in the Politico story, Karen Kraushaar, was released, but she has refused to release details of the accusations she made, despite initially indicating she would do so, and it turns out this was not her only employment complaint.  Another accuser with a dubious background, Sharon Bialek, came forward, but she was not part of the original Politico story and her supposed corroboration also was suspect.
 
While the media regularly referred to 4 or 5 accusers, we only knew the names of two of them and only knew the accusations of one of them.
 
But back to Politico.
 
After hundreds of articles at Politico, what do we know about the specific accusations against Herman Cain which gave rise to Politico’s original reporting:  Nothing.
 
After hundreds of articles at Politico, what do we know about the specific evidence against Herman Cain which gave rise to Politico’s original reporting:  Nothing.
 
Truly incredible.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential: Manchester NH Union Leader endorsement of Newt
« Reply #1044 on: November 28, 2011, 07:53:33 AM »
http://www.unionleader.com/doclib/2011endorsement.html

For President, Newt Gingrich
By JOSEPH W. McQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher
Published Nov 27, 2011 at 1:00 am

This newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.

He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.

We sympathize with the many people we have heard from, both here and across the country, who remain unsure of their choice this close to the primary. It is understandable. Our nation is in peril, yet much of the attention has been focused on fluff, silliness and each candidate's minor miscues.

Truth be known, many in the liberal media are belittling the Republican candidates because they don't want any of them to be taken as a serious challenger to their man, Obama.

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

We don't have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential: Romney ad in NH
« Reply #1045 on: November 28, 2011, 08:00:27 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1046 on: November 28, 2011, 08:40:45 AM »
"Mitt Romney will take a smaller, simpler, and smarter approach to government."

Excellent - a perfect comeback and in your face to the Clinton strategy of "smarter" government (see my post under the Clinton thread).  Yes smarter and more honest governent but smaller not larger like the liberals.

We have got to counter the dem machine idealogy that government is the answer to solving all the ills of mankind and every other ill affecting the Earth.



 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential and congressional elections: one last chance to get it right
« Reply #1047 on: November 28, 2011, 10:28:36 AM »
CCP, I agree. Romney is showing conservatives he can take the fight to Obama, show contrast and not buddy up like McCain did. He is saying how he will do it with substance, specificity and clarity - all in a one minute ad. The uproar to that ad from the Obama side is that the quotes were from 2008, but that was clearly identified at the start.  The point is that the things people were excited about for candidate Obama, the Greek columns / Hyde Park guy, didn't happen, at least not in a positive way.  I am skeptical anyone will make government much smaller, but perhaps the one who can reform the most is the one people find the least threatening.  One part of smarter is send state governing responsibilities back to the states.

To unite Republicans and conservatives of all the types defined by Morris (economic conservatives, establishment, evangelical/social, national security and defense, tea party - fiscal and constitutional), Romney or whoever wins will need to embrace good points that came from the candidates who will leave the race and sell these points of conservatism successfully to centrists in contrast with our current failed direction.
------------
GM's update on the Cain story is quite interesting.  Lost in the unknown of what didn't happen behind closed doors with really only one, not very credible personal allegation is that Cain also has showed he isn't ready on a couple of other matters of importance.  Too bad, it would be great to have a real outsider with a real business and analytical approach walk in and clean house.  The 9-9-9 plan is too bold for a 270 electoral vote win and immediate implementation when no real thought was given to handling the transition.

The conservative question still remains, who is the most conservative who can win the nomination AND the general election.  Newt leads now in the last 4 polls but his surge is so recent.  I don't think he will close the deal, but we will know very soon.

Unless a person lives or has influence in one of the first 4 states, I think the best thing you can do is go influence your own candidates and races for the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle in your area with your views.  Democrats in competitive districts need to move their candidates away from the current anti-capitalism, anti economic freedom movement or they will fall.  Republicans need to advance their principles, win, and then for a change, stick with them.  If a Pres. Newt wins but jumps around too much to new ideas before the old ones are fully implemented (didn't we already end services baseline budgeting?), a strong principled congress could help keep him on track.  Same goes for a Pres. Romney.  If his economic plan and his undisclosed tax cuts are too timid, congress can pass the right plan and put it on his desk.

As GM put it about 2 years ago, this is a two election fix.  We are now there and have used up our Mulligans.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1048 on: November 28, 2011, 10:58:37 AM »
" I am skeptical anyone will make government much smaller, but perhaps the one who can reform the most is the one people find the least threatening.  One part of smarter is send state governing responsibilities back to the states."

Taking a page from Alinsky - if you want to change "them"  pretend you are one of them.

Mitt can play he is a liberal and establishment guy but he is really behind the scenes  - a great conservative.

Well one can only wish....


JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #1049 on: November 28, 2011, 03:43:58 PM »
An Atlanta businesswoman accused GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain of having had an affair with her that lasted 13 years, an Atlanta television station reported Monday.

According to Cain's attorney,

"Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults -- a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door."

Surely he jests. Of course it's the public's right to know; he's running for President - part of his platform is "Family Values" and "trust".  People have been driven out of office for less.  I have no idea if it's true or not; but it's hard to make up a 13 year affair.

I've said all along I don't think he's qualified anyway, but this could be the nail in Cain's coffin. 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_c1