Ignorant Canuck question: Who are the contenders for the Republicans when it comes to the 2012 run? Palin can't be a serious contender....right?
Palin's the front runner, probably.
Romney
Pawlenty
Sen. Thune is a name a lot of people throw out
Newt will be mentioned, but inevitably will decide to be the "ideas" man, with that term being used loosely
Huckabee is supposedly not running, but I don't trust him
DeMint if the tea partiers want to run someone
Man, don't forget Scott Brown. Did you know he won Ted Kennedy's seat? That means he's virtually guaranteed a win if he runs for POTUS in 2012!
If the primaries were in six months, it'd be Romney vs. Palin
If the primaries were in six months a lot more people would be making noises about running. Palin isn't so much the front runner as the person who shows up an hour before the party starts.
I'm a registered Republican, so I can vote in the primaries in the sate of Florida (the democratic party is super entrenched where I am so it's not really worth it.) I somewhat follow the goings on in the party when elections come around to pick a primary candidate (like this year's governor race.)
Obviously, the tea bag people and the pundits really love Palin. That being said, they're a fickle bunch. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck hold a lot of sway over the Republicans (teabaggers and otherwise,) and if they really think Palin will get taken to the woodshed by Obama, they'll look elsewhere...if they want to win. Realistically, those guys have never done better. Being in the minority gives them way more ammo. It's way easier to attack the people in power than the minority.
Limbaugh is, to me, all business. I think he'd be waving a hammer and sickle flag if it would net him the most cash money.
Most conservatives I've talked to seem to have a fundamental disconnect with reality. Too often they let wishful thinking overwhelm a logical analysis.
I have a friend who is convinced the R's are going to retake the Senate.
Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck hold a lot of sway over the Republicans (teabaggers and otherwise,) and if they really think Palin will get taken to the woodshed by Obama, they'll look elsewhere...if they want to win. Realistically, those guys have never done better.
Looking at it in terms of plurality election dynamics* on a simplified single axis spectrum, you could argue that the recent reach and energy of conservative media has had the effect of distorting the usual distribution of voters, moving a portion further to the right where there’s a higher risk of them abstaining from the election or defecting to a third party, thereby risking splitting the voting base. Which is why I assume the Republican establishment has been pandering to them, aside from the usual primary concerns of the individual candidates. Glancing at the numbers though, it seems like the smart thing for the Republicans to do would be to pick a relatively moderate candidate and rely on right-wing fears of an Obama re-election to keep the base in line. Which would unfortunately mean more months of fear-mongering nonsense that even as someone who leans fiscally conservative I won’t be able to listen to without banging my head on something.
Or just throw Palin out as a sacrificial lamb and start planning for 2016, as someone suggested. If they do, they better be sure to actually back her up fully even if it’s pointless. She seems like the vindictive type who would have no problem blaming the establishment for her failure otherwise. Although to her credit, I think she might be smart enough to not actually run in the first place.
She's the frontrunner by default; name another prominent Republican in the media who has a shot at it
Keep in mind Obama wasn’t a big name a few years before the election; they still might try to bring up some relatively obscure Governor, or hell even a Senator, since that historical trend’s been broken. My guess would be Romney though, for the reasons above. I’m not too familiar with his record, but his health care past seems to imply some level of moderation.
* Which statistically tend towards two relatively similar parties who both try to capture the middle while not pissing off the hardcore enough to keep "the lesser of two evils" from being an acceptable vote.
Which would unfortunately mean more months of fear-mongering nonsense that even as someone who leans fiscally conservative I won’t be able to listen to without banging my head on something.
I am a fiscal conservative (just straight up,) but the tea parties aren't about fiscal discipline. I went to one in Tampa just to see what was going on. They were talking about supporting the wars, religious stuff, and abortion. I'm not sure how many people are out there that have fiscal discipline as one of their more important criteria for voting, but it sure seems like not many for how often there's the turn and burn performed on people wanting a very disciplined approach to our current spending policy, the money we currently have promised in the form of social security, or the climate in which our currency is handled.
I think after about a year and a half of demonizing Obama, I'm still not entirely sure how many people have been converted to a way of thinking that was different before the election. Rasmussen has had the strongly disapprove rating for Obama go up about 20 points since he was elected, but I have my doubts that the Republican machine is that effective at bringing people over.
Most conservatives I've talked to seem to have a fundamental disconnect with reality. Too often they let wishful thinking overwhelm a logical analysis.
I have a friend who is convinced the R's are going to retake the Senate.
...
...
...
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
But I wouldn't sell em short on winning the Senate. At least. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at these days it's selling hate to the midwest, and anyone else that'll buy in.
edit: actually my wish would be for R's from 50 years ago to retake the senate. But what can you do, right?
Most conservatives I've talked to seem to have a fundamental disconnect with reality. Too often they let wishful thinking overwhelm a logical analysis.
I have a friend who is convinced the R's are going to retake the Senate.
...
...
...
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
But I wouldn't sell em short on winning the Senate. At least. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at these days it's selling hate to the midwest, and anyone else that'll buy in.
edit: actually my wish would be for R's from 50 years ago to retake the senate. But what can you do, right?
They have to flip ten seats. It was an insane wave when the Democrats flipped six in 2006.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Most conservatives I've talked to seem to have a fundamental disconnect with reality. Too often they let wishful thinking overwhelm a logical analysis.
I have a friend who is convinced the R's are going to retake the Senate.
...
...
...
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
But I wouldn't sell em short on winning the Senate. At least. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at these days it's selling hate to the midwest, and anyone else that'll buy in.
edit: actually my wish would be for R's from 50 years ago to retake the senate. But what can you do, right?
This is true. But I'll tell you I'm of the opinion that R's sell hate and discontent way better. Which is sad, and effective. And now they're in the minority? Sweet Jesus, should be like Christmas for em.
Now don't get me wrong. I hate this fact about the Republican Party. But I feel a fact it will remain.
They have to flip ten seats. It was an insane wave when the Democrats flipped six in 2006.
My point is that it's not particularly effective anymore. They're going to win in November, but that's more due to institutional problems with Congress making the incumbents hated combined with voters always voting based on the economy and not having a functional memory.
But they won't win big.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think after about a year and a half of demonizing Obama, I'm still not entirely sure how many people have been converted to a way of thinking that was different before the election. Rasmussen has had the strongly disapprove rating for Obama go up about 20 points since he was elected, but I have my doubts that the Republican machine is that effective at bringing people over.
I don’t think it’s brought people over (the conservative popular media more than the actual party, although the latter mostly tacitly accepts the tactics of the former), so much as pushed a fair amount of voters who were already Republican further right, thereby increasing the danger of a split voter base. A national third-party Tea Party, er party (party!) could be potentially quite damaging for the Republicans.
But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
This. One of the reasons I was fine voting for Obama is that the other party has essentially no credibility left on the issue after Bush (even discounting the war/anti-terrorism spending).
Word. I have to agree. That and I lived in Chicago in November that year, so if I didn't vote for him they would have strung me up I think. Bigger than the Beatles, there he was.
TLH on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I wouldnt mind having the conservatives from 50 years ago. Not that they were particularly fiscally conservative relative to their counterparts, but from the founding of the country up until Reagan we had strong trade tariffs to protect our domestic industry(hence we still made things). The top tax rate was from 70% to 90% between 1940 and Reagan, also known as the golden age of the middle class. We've been operating under Reaganomics ever since. Insane debt, transfer of wealth to the top. I'd love to go back to those conditions.
Many of the conservative presidents then took up the issue of health care reform and failed, and we just got one that was to the right of Nixon.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I guess we should take heart that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul took the top spots in the recent GOP straw poll? Especially at a convention where Palin was the keynote speaker? I suppose we should be thankful that the GOP is now leaning toward "crazy and dangerous" instead of "outright demonstrably ignorant."
I think it's funny that my dad, a fervent Tea Partier, only had his opinion changed about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin when he actually went to a rally she spoke at. Then he was all, "Jesus, this lady is fucking stupid. Maybe I should rethink joining this movement, because its leadership is dumb as hell."
I guess we should take heart that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul took the top spots in the recent GOP straw poll? Especially at a convention where Palin was the keynote speaker? I suppose we should be thankful that the GOP is now leaning toward "crazy and dangerous" instead of "outright demonstrably ignorant."
I think it's funny that my dad, a fervent Tea Partier, only had his opinion changed about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin when he actually went to a rally she spoke at. Then he was all, "Jesus, this lady is fucking stupid. Maybe I should rethink joining this movement, because its leadership is dumb as hell."
Now all you have to do is convince him that paygo is the most fiscally conservative idea ever conceived.
I guess we should take heart that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul took the top spots in the recent GOP straw poll? Especially at a convention where Palin was the keynote speaker? I suppose we should be thankful that the GOP is now leaning toward "crazy and dangerous" instead of "outright demonstrably ignorant."
I think it's funny that my dad, a fervent Tea Partier, only had his opinion changed about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin when he actually went to a rally she spoke at. Then he was all, "Jesus, this lady is fucking stupid. Maybe I should rethink joining this movement, because its leadership is dumb as hell."
Now all you have to do is convince him that paygo is the most fiscally conservative idea ever conceived.
I'm not sure your average Tea Partiers have one fucking clue about actual budgetary policy. I mean, my dad does, but he's a certified accountant and runs a business, but the obese woman in the lawn chair dressed like Betsy Ross holding the Obama = Hitler sign? Probably not.
As fucked up as it is, I suppose being a Romney Republican is worlds better than being a Palin Republican.
I'm not sure your average Tea Partiers have one fucking clue about actual budgetary policy. I mean, my dad does, but he's a certified accountant and runs a business, but the obese woman in the lawn chair dressed like Betsy Ross holding the Obama = Hitler sign? Probably not.
As fucked up as it is, I suppose being a Romney Republican is worlds better than being a Palin Republican.
I think Romney, if he felt no compulsion to maintain unity with the R party positions, would not be an unreasonable candidate.
I'm not sure your average Tea Partiers have one fucking clue about actual budgetary policy. I mean, my dad does, but he's a certified accountant and runs a business, but the obese woman in the lawn chair dressed like Betsy Ross holding the Obama = Hitler sign? Probably not.
As fucked up as it is, I suppose being a Romney Republican is worlds better than being a Palin Republican.
I think Romney, if he felt no compulsion to maintain unity with the R party positions, would not be an unreasonable candidate.
Also, a Unicorn would be totally cool.
My biggest issue with Romney is his stance on things like Prop-8 and civil rights, and how that if he is going to win the GOP nom, he's going to have to pull that shit out and wave it around so the Fundies won't be scared off by his Mormonism.
I mean, the guy is totally about economics and high-brow stuff like that, but isn't above pandering. It remains to be seen how strongly he'll play into that, but it could easily cost him any chance at my vote.
But so far I'm digging Obama's approach, and see no strong reason to unseat him just yet.
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
It's never, ever, made you a Republican during your lifetime. A realistic look at the facts will tell you it makes you a Democrat. That more people do not realize this is the results of ridiculous demagoguery.
But I wouldn't sell em short on winning the Senate. At least. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at these days it's selling hate to the midwest, and anyone else that'll buy in.
It'd be a pretty colossal shift. The calender isn't great for the D's but that kind of shift would be shocking. I now wonder what the largest shift in Senate seats from one congress to the next is.
edit: actually my wish would be for R's from 50 years ago to retake the senate. But what can you do, right?
Aside from the racism and the deal with the devil they made with regards to Social Security revenue they would be far more acceptable than what we have now. What concerns me most lately is that we have an ineffective party with mostly reasonable ideas and an annoying effective party with no ideas not cribbed from the PR department of fascist states.
1984 is not supposed to be a how to manual.
Edit: Three times in the past 30 years, 1980, 1988 and 1996 had comparable shifts in the senate.
The GOP's current fiscal conservatism is to put off paying for anything until the Dems are in control and blaming them for the deficit. It works because most people have a political memory of about a month
It's going to be interesting if she does run to watch the professional Republican establishment try to stop her.
The professional Republican establishment is pretty much powerless at this point. Between the teabaggers, Fox News, and the pundits, they've all but lost control of the party.
Maybe.
I'm not sure we've seen a situation where there has been real open conflict.
How about that moderate candidate in the senate election that got ousted by Teabaggers in favour of a teabagger?
A better example and taste of things to come will be what happens to McCain now that he's fighting off a Teabagger for his own senate seat.
How about that moderate candidate in the senate election that got ousted by Teabaggers in favour of a teabagger?
A better example and taste of things to come will be what happens to McCain now that he's fighting off a Teabagger for his own senate seat.
Are you talking about N-23 or am I blanking on a Senate race? That was for a house seat.
The only reason Hoffman really had a chance was because he didn't get much press on how fucking crazy and asshole-ish he was. If he was the bona fide candidate I don't think things would have gone as well for him.
Owens (the Democrat) was arguably less liberal that Scozzafava (the Republican). Though he did just vote for Health Care.
Somebody was asking about Republican front runners, a straw poll was just released, commented on over at FiveThirtyEight.com.
It's a scary thought that among the R's disunity it might become a fight between Palin and Paul. Fuck, if that in some order was the ticket? *shudder*
Honestly, I don't think you can summarize Paul into a small enough saying to have him run with Palin, and I don't think Palin can elaborate on her crazy enough to stand next to Paul.
I mean "Gold, baby, Gold!" is the closest I can come to a catchphrase for the combined ticket.
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
It's never, ever, made you a Republican during your lifetime. A realistic look at the facts will tell you it makes you a Democrat. That more people do not realize this is the results of ridiculous demagoguery.
I'm not sure your average Tea Partiers have one fucking clue about actual budgetary policy. I mean, my dad does, but he's a certified accountant and runs a business, but the obese woman in the lawn chair dressed like Betsy Ross holding the Obama = Hitler sign? Probably not.
As fucked up as it is, I suppose being a Romney Republican is worlds better than being a Palin Republican.
I think Romney, if he felt no compulsion to maintain unity with the R party positions, would not be an unreasonable candidate.
Also, a Unicorn would be totally cool.
My biggest issue with Romney is his stance on things like Prop-8 and civil rights, and how that if he is going to win the GOP nom, he's going to have to pull that shit out and wave it around so the Fundies won't be scared off by his Mormonism.
I mean, the guy is totally about economics and high-brow stuff like that, but isn't above pandering. It remains to be seen how strongly he'll play into that, but it could easily cost him any chance at my vote.
But so far I'm digging Obama's approach, and see no strong reason to unseat him just yet.
Yeah, honestly, if I had to pick a Pub that actually had a shot in hell, it would be Romney. He strikes me as slimy and opportunistic, but he's also smart and fairly competent and isn't a gung-ho idealogue. I don't like him, but I could deal with him as president.
That said, I'll be voting Obama unless it turns out he's actually a lizard person suicide bomber or something. And even then I could be swayed.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I voted for Ron Paul these last primaries purely because I wanted him to stay in the election as long as possible. Him asking McCain about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets and McCain clearly being at a complete loss during one of the debates was one of my favorite moments of this last election. He has an antiquated concept of monetary policy, but at the heart of things, I believe he's actually genuine. I don't think he'll run again though.
I could never vote for Romney. I guess it's kind of discriminatory, but the Mormonism thing is something I'm going to have a hard time ignoring, especially after the Mormon church's actions against gay people. He's probably down with the drug war too.
The GOP's current fiscal conservatism is to put off paying for anything until the Dems are in control and blaming them for the deficit. It works because most people have a political memory of about a month
This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.
I kind of doubt it honestly. Although the last campaign was a big internet sensation, it didn't really yield much in terms of actual votes or even media coverage, and Paul himself is pushing 80. I can't imagine why he would want to run again unless it's to sell some books or something.
I also really, really doubt Romney will ever make it past the primaries. He basically tried to buy it last time and we all saw how that worked. The fact of the matter is that the evangelical Christians who make up a significant portion of what's left of the GOP base do not like the LDS church at all. They see them as a schismatic sect (and if you study religion you know how that goes) who teaches a false form of religion. Evangelicals actually began to drift away from the GOP during the 2000s because they realized that even with the Republicans fully in power they weren't going to change the issues they'd been voting on them for decades to change (Roe vs. Wade, etc.). Picking a Mormon on the presidential ticket is just going to further alienate these people from the party and if they lose evangelicals for good the GOP is sunk.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Romney has one of the most boring and generic personalities in American politics. Coming across as the living embodiment of a Brooks Brothers sweater vest is not going to win you the endearment of most Americans.
This isn't to say they won't do it, of course, because I really don't think the GOP kingmakers interact that much with these people, who tend to be working/lower-middle class and definitely don't show up to GOP fundraisers. But if they do pick Romney I think they'll regret it dearly in the long run.
Somebody was asking about Republican front runners, a straw poll was just released, commented on over at FiveThirtyEight.com.
It's a scary thought that among the R's disunity it might become a fight between Palin and Paul. Fuck, if that in some order was the ticket? *shudder*
I predict that no more than two of those names will actually be a strong candidate in two years.
Trying to figure out who's going to run two years out makes reading tea leaves look like hard science.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
Who was the party in control of Congress though? They're the people who actually set the budget? Who was the president when paygo was reenacted? You can say what you want about the Republican held congress and presidency, but giving Clinton credit for the surplus and the Democrats in Congress credit for PAYGO, acting like the Republicans weren't involved in setting the Budget during Clinton and Bush didn't sign PAYGO despite his promises not to raise taxes seems to be showing only part of the story.
It was like 20-10 years ago, and not really relevant to the current Republican party though.
Posts
She's the frontrunner by default; name another prominent Republican in the media who has a shot at it
I can't. I would actually like to see her run against the President just to see her try and debate him on anything.
Man, don't forget Scott Brown. Did you know he won Ted Kennedy's seat? That means he's virtually guaranteed a win if he runs for POTUS in 2012!
Obviously, the tea bag people and the pundits really love Palin. That being said, they're a fickle bunch. Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck hold a lot of sway over the Republicans (teabaggers and otherwise,) and if they really think Palin will get taken to the woodshed by Obama, they'll look elsewhere...if they want to win. Realistically, those guys have never done better. Being in the minority gives them way more ammo. It's way easier to attack the people in power than the minority.
Limbaugh is, to me, all business. I think he'd be waving a hammer and sickle flag if it would net him the most cash money.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I have a friend who is convinced the R's are going to retake the Senate.
...
...
...
Or just throw Palin out as a sacrificial lamb and start planning for 2016, as someone suggested. If they do, they better be sure to actually back her up fully even if it’s pointless. She seems like the vindictive type who would have no problem blaming the establishment for her failure otherwise. Although to her credit, I think she might be smart enough to not actually run in the first place.
Keep in mind Obama wasn’t a big name a few years before the election; they still might try to bring up some relatively obscure Governor, or hell even a Senator, since that historical trend’s been broken. My guess would be Romney though, for the reasons above. I’m not too familiar with his record, but his health care past seems to imply some level of moderation.
* Which statistically tend towards two relatively similar parties who both try to capture the middle while not pissing off the hardcore enough to keep "the lesser of two evils" from being an acceptable vote.
I am a fiscal conservative (just straight up,) but the tea parties aren't about fiscal discipline. I went to one in Tampa just to see what was going on. They were talking about supporting the wars, religious stuff, and abortion. I'm not sure how many people are out there that have fiscal discipline as one of their more important criteria for voting, but it sure seems like not many for how often there's the turn and burn performed on people wanting a very disciplined approach to our current spending policy, the money we currently have promised in the form of social security, or the climate in which our currency is handled.
I think after about a year and a half of demonizing Obama, I'm still not entirely sure how many people have been converted to a way of thinking that was different before the election. Rasmussen has had the strongly disapprove rating for Obama go up about 20 points since he was elected, but I have my doubts that the Republican machine is that effective at bringing people over.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Why does that seem unlikely? My best wish would be for a R Senate at least. But like dev, I'm a fiscal conservative, which actually doesn't make me a Republican anymore.
But I wouldn't sell em short on winning the Senate. At least. If there is one thing the Republicans are good at these days it's selling hate to the midwest, and anyone else that'll buy in.
edit: actually my wish would be for R's from 50 years ago to retake the senate. But what can you do, right?
They have to flip ten seats. It was an insane wave when the Democrats flipped six in 2006.
Like religion.
But they won't win big.
All I said was I think they we're going to prolly win in Nov, but I am sad about the real reason/process of why they will.
Huzzah?
WE CAN'T REPEL RHETORIC OF THAT MAGNITUDE!!!
This. One of the reasons I was fine voting for Obama is that the other party has essentially no credibility left on the issue after Bush (even discounting the war/anti-terrorism spending).
Many of the conservative presidents then took up the issue of health care reform and failed, and we just got one that was to the right of Nixon.
I think it's funny that my dad, a fervent Tea Partier, only had his opinion changed about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin when he actually went to a rally she spoke at. Then he was all, "Jesus, this lady is fucking stupid. Maybe I should rethink joining this movement, because its leadership is dumb as hell."
Now all you have to do is convince him that paygo is the most fiscally conservative idea ever conceived.
I'm not sure your average Tea Partiers have one fucking clue about actual budgetary policy. I mean, my dad does, but he's a certified accountant and runs a business, but the obese woman in the lawn chair dressed like Betsy Ross holding the Obama = Hitler sign? Probably not.
As fucked up as it is, I suppose being a Romney Republican is worlds better than being a Palin Republican.
Also, a Unicorn would be totally cool.
My biggest issue with Romney is his stance on things like Prop-8 and civil rights, and how that if he is going to win the GOP nom, he's going to have to pull that shit out and wave it around so the Fundies won't be scared off by his Mormonism.
I mean, the guy is totally about economics and high-brow stuff like that, but isn't above pandering. It remains to be seen how strongly he'll play into that, but it could easily cost him any chance at my vote.
But so far I'm digging Obama's approach, and see no strong reason to unseat him just yet.
Which party was the last President that reduced the deficit during his term a member of? Which party controlled the legislative bodies when Paygo was reenacted? When it was last allowed to expire? Which party was the legislative bodies and the President members of when they stopped placing trillion dollar voluntary expenditures "off the books"?
It's never, ever, made you a Republican during your lifetime. A realistic look at the facts will tell you it makes you a Democrat. That more people do not realize this is the results of ridiculous demagoguery.
It'd be a pretty colossal shift. The calender isn't great for the D's but that kind of shift would be shocking. I now wonder what the largest shift in Senate seats from one congress to the next is.
Aside from the racism and the deal with the devil they made with regards to Social Security revenue they would be far more acceptable than what we have now. What concerns me most lately is that we have an ineffective party with mostly reasonable ideas and an annoying effective party with no ideas not cribbed from the PR department of fascist states.
1984 is not supposed to be a how to manual.
Edit: Three times in the past 30 years, 1980, 1988 and 1996 had comparable shifts in the senate.
How about that moderate candidate in the senate election that got ousted by Teabaggers in favour of a teabagger?
A better example and taste of things to come will be what happens to McCain now that he's fighting off a Teabagger for his own senate seat.
It's a scary thought that among the R's disunity it might become a fight between Palin and Paul. Fuck, if that in some order was the ticket? *shudder*
The only reason Hoffman really had a chance was because he didn't get much press on how fucking crazy and asshole-ish he was. If he was the bona fide candidate I don't think things would have gone as well for him.
Owens (the Democrat) was arguably less liberal that Scozzafava (the Republican). Though he did just vote for Health Care.
Honestly, I don't think you can summarize Paul into a small enough saying to have him run with Palin, and I don't think Palin can elaborate on her crazy enough to stand next to Paul.
I mean "Gold, baby, Gold!" is the closest I can come to a catchphrase for the combined ticket.
Oh, wait.
Palin/Paul 2012
Drill for the Gold!
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I might support that in the primary.
Yeah, honestly, if I had to pick a Pub that actually had a shot in hell, it would be Romney. He strikes me as slimy and opportunistic, but he's also smart and fairly competent and isn't a gung-ho idealogue. I don't like him, but I could deal with him as president.
That said, I'll be voting Obama unless it turns out he's actually a lizard person suicide bomber or something. And even then I could be swayed.
I could never vote for Romney. I guess it's kind of discriminatory, but the Mormonism thing is something I'm going to have a hard time ignoring, especially after the Mormon church's actions against gay people. He's probably down with the drug war too.
This is where they conveniently use the war. They'll say, well, we were also fighting two wars. The obvious response is...uh...wars you guys started? Their response will be, so you don't think we should have rescued people from tyrants. As soon as they make it a question of morality, the more they can hedge and cast aspersions. You're now someone who likes tyrants and hates freedom and so on.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I also really, really doubt Romney will ever make it past the primaries. He basically tried to buy it last time and we all saw how that worked. The fact of the matter is that the evangelical Christians who make up a significant portion of what's left of the GOP base do not like the LDS church at all. They see them as a schismatic sect (and if you study religion you know how that goes) who teaches a false form of religion. Evangelicals actually began to drift away from the GOP during the 2000s because they realized that even with the Republicans fully in power they weren't going to change the issues they'd been voting on them for decades to change (Roe vs. Wade, etc.). Picking a Mormon on the presidential ticket is just going to further alienate these people from the party and if they lose evangelicals for good the GOP is sunk.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that Romney has one of the most boring and generic personalities in American politics. Coming across as the living embodiment of a Brooks Brothers sweater vest is not going to win you the endearment of most Americans.
This isn't to say they won't do it, of course, because I really don't think the GOP kingmakers interact that much with these people, who tend to be working/lower-middle class and definitely don't show up to GOP fundraisers. But if they do pick Romney I think they'll regret it dearly in the long run.
I predict that no more than two of those names will actually be a strong candidate in two years.
Trying to figure out who's going to run two years out makes reading tea leaves look like hard science.
Who was the party in control of Congress though? They're the people who actually set the budget? Who was the president when paygo was reenacted? You can say what you want about the Republican held congress and presidency, but giving Clinton credit for the surplus and the Democrats in Congress credit for PAYGO, acting like the Republicans weren't involved in setting the Budget during Clinton and Bush didn't sign PAYGO despite his promises not to raise taxes seems to be showing only part of the story.
It was like 20-10 years ago, and not really relevant to the current Republican party though.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise