Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 30, 2014, 10:58:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83118 Posts in 2259 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 137234 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #300 on: May 14, 2011, 10:32:39 PM »

Herman Cain: Why trivialize his amazing business career or post about it if you have no idea.  Working his way to the top tier up of 2 large, prestigious, American companies.  Arranging a buyout and turnaround of a major division.  Who else do you know that has done that?  Why list his experience and skip over the fact that he was also chair of the Kansas City Fed.  (Did you really not know that?)  So you call him a radio announcer...  Why dwell on losing once?  Who didn't? Maybe he fits more as an executive than as a legislator.  Let's at least have an adult conversation.  He is a serious man and has every right to run, even with very dark colored skin.  Obama and all his administration lacked private sector experience to an extreme.  Cain has it.  Lacks other things.  No one in this contest has a perfect resume, especially the incumbent.

GM: "What was Obama's experience again?"

Even with 4 years in office, what is his experience.  That is answered something like this, I succeeded at ... and ...  For the most part he had led us incompetently in the wrong direction.  Thank God for the incompetent part or he would have led us further - in the wrong direction.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #301 on: May 14, 2011, 11:32:45 PM »

Obama was elected a U.S. Senator.  And before that a State Legislator.  Not to mention a Law Degree from Harvard, head of the Harvard Law Review, Professorship at Chicago, etc.
That said, I'm not saying it's an "amazing" resume.

As for Cain's "amazing business career" well I concede he was successful as head of the Pizza division,  a subsidiary of Pillsbury but that is hardly "amazing". Still, it might be better than Palin!   smiley

And yes, he was chair of the Kansas City Fed (do they make any decisions?); a political appointment and as chair, probably a position rotated around the table.  He showed up, that's probably it.

And for the last 10+ years all he has done is be a radio announcer; that's entertainment, not "running a business".  Sorry, that's it.  Cain got his butt kicked in the only election he entered.  Maybe he's now a radio announcer because he did get his butt kicked?  Losing once is fine.  Not trying again for 10 years, means, well, you are a loser (I use that term in the political sense only).

Of course he has every right to run.  I'm the liberal here; I don't care about his skin color.  But surely the Republicans can find someone better.  Or if not, the Republicans will lose.

I'm trying to have a "serious conversation".  Run someone who has the potential to win.  Look at the polls.  Cain couldn't/didn't beat a nobody/anybody from nowhere in a small town.
Now he is going to win a national election?  Well you get the idea.   He's amusing, he says the right things, you gotta love him, he will stir up the pot for the better, I like some of his ideas,
but his election will never happen so let's move on.  Don't chase windmills. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #302 on: May 15, 2011, 12:32:49 AM »

Up from the memory hole-- BO's Senate win was against lst minute stand-in and carpetbagger to Illinois, Alan Keyes.

At the moment I am delighted to see Cain in there aggressively speaking Tea Party themes effectively and aggressively.  It is very much to the good; amongst other things it will make it harder for the Dems to racebait the eventual Republican nominee I think.  Cain might make a good VP candidate , , ,
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #303 on: May 15, 2011, 08:45:24 AM »

At the moment I am delighted to see Cain in there aggressively speaking Tea Party themes effectively and aggressively.  It is very much to the good;   Cain might make a good VP candidate , , ,

I agree.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #304 on: May 15, 2011, 08:52:49 AM »

Also, something that caught my attention recently about Cain was some footage of President Clinton (not the current one, the one from the 90s) doing some "meet with and answer questions of real live citizens sort of thing" and there was Cain, questioning him about Hillary Care which was then a heated issue. (1993?)  Cain was , , , drum roll please , , , abely , , , rim shot , , , questioning the President with some follow up questions that were pointed without being disrespectful. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #305 on: May 15, 2011, 09:25:47 AM »

Chosen head of the law review (school paper) counts (without ever writing).  Chosen head of the Federal Reserve for a 7 state region doesn't.  Losing one election makes you a loser (politically), having your opponent pulled off the ballot with information you learned working for your opponent, and winning unopposed makes you slime, uh a winner.

I'll never get all these rules down.  

McCain was unelectable, BTW, and he won about a dozen US Senate terms.  Bush won the nomination and election twice but couldn't articulate what he stood for.  A guy speaks out passionately from the heart for a decade on what this country needs to get going again and they call it - entertainment.  Maybe they should have him on the black entertainment awards, I didn't see him there.  You say his show ran 10 years.  The Dick van Dyke show only ran for 5.  10 is a pretty good run in entertainment.  Why was he canceled?  (He wasn't) You still missed his career at Coca Cola, btw.  They understand profits in business where elected officials understand taxes and contributions from business.  He doesn't understand pizza, he understands business and he understands America and what needs to be brought back.  Running a major market radio show is a business.  Reagan came from an entertainment background and spoke out on the issues of the nation for decades.  In hindsight at least, the serious presidential historians called it - preparation!

The biggest conservative convention - this year - for their keynote speaker chose Herman Cain.

We've had one debate.  Most thought the winner was - Herman Cain.  Is that still just entertainment, it doesn't matter who wins the debates?

"Don't chase windmills."  Huh

Let's go back to the old way.  You get to choose who you like and say why.  And we get to choose who we like.  I am looking for a leader who says what he means and means what he(or she) says.  Cain for one presents himself as a very serious man.

Did anyone mention a mathematics degree, masters at Purdue in computer science (11 years before MS-DOS 1.0), ballistics in the US Navy, head of the national restaurant association, 4 years at the fed, Coca cola, Pillsbury, Burger King, Godfathers.  From big corporations to entrepreneur.  From the most profitable companies to turning around one that was not, to public service to 10 years in communications, to running for President, to having some poster put you and your admirers down for chasing at windmills.

'Saying the right things' (and doing the right things), that is what I'm looking for.  If you can show me evidence of insincerity, that is another matter.  On the other side (Obama) I can show you plenty.

Unelectable is a term we can use after the election.  Someone is going to set themselves apart from a very crowded field in the new majority party and he or she will be taken seriously, win or lose.

One thing both Pawlenty and Cain are doing right is stepping forward and running.  Others are looking for someone who is not running, not forming the committees, not doing the groundwork, not at the debates, but come sweep them off their feet.  

Funny that no one wrote off Trump because his experience was only private sector, and nothing close to the background described above.  They finally wrote him off for being a nut.  
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #306 on: May 15, 2011, 10:12:07 AM »

Nothing wrong with losing one election, but never running again for anything says something.  And now he wants to be President?    shocked

Don Quixote has a better chance of winning the general election for President than does Cain. 

I too think he is sincere; that's commendable.  And I too enjoy Cain aggressively addressing pertinent themes.  It livens up the debate. But...

If the Republican's don't win, that means get the vote from the majority of Americans, not just Tea Party Members, you will have Obama for four more years.
It's all about getting the votes.

You need in the end someone to sweep America off it's feet.  And it will never be Cain.

Sorry, just my opinion.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #307 on: May 15, 2011, 10:41:04 AM »

On the 4th try or so, if we can't identify a position that is too extreme I will just assume it is a color that is too black.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #308 on: May 15, 2011, 10:50:37 AM »

JDN raises a fair point here, though he substantially understates Cain's track record as Doug points out.

I certainly have had nowhere near the exposure to Cain necessary for me to form any sort of opinion of substance, but I do admit to being chuckled at the idea of two black men running for the Presidency with one of them apparently a genuine sincere man of Tea Party proclivities.    What a great way to neuter Democratoc race-baiting!!! afro
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #309 on: May 15, 2011, 12:06:16 PM »

Nobody gets more race-hatred from the left than minorities who dare to take conservative positions. Cain has already been compared to a monkey by some leftist blogger.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #310 on: May 15, 2011, 12:17:17 PM »

In the big picture and Cain's capable hands I think this sort of hateful nonsense will help the cause of Freedom.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #311 on: May 15, 2011, 12:35:50 PM »

Cain raises the bar for everyone. 

Why didn't people say Obama was unelectable?

The flaw I have seen is his support for the Fair Tax which I think is a bad idea.  I have just tried defend him against charges that are false.  He is capable and plenty qualified.  Zogby has him running first among those who are in the race: http://www.zogby.com/news/2011/05/10/ibope-zogby-poll-cain-now-second-christie-top-choice-gop-primary-voters-/

Huckebee is out and I think out Palin likely out.  Huntsman probably in.  Daniels?  The field is almost set.  There aren't many others hovering in superhero costumes that I can see.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #312 on: May 16, 2011, 09:36:55 AM »

Saw him over the weekend.  I saw only a partial interview but he sounded great.  This guy may very well be another one to watch if he can raise money.   Agriculture and ethanol subsidies have to go.  *F* Iowa if they don't like.  I am not paying taxes up the wazoo so people who farm can get benefits.  Additionally, there is a whole cottage industry of others taking advantage of the farm subsidies to get out of paying taxes.

****FILE: Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer speaks at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on March 7 at the Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa.
WASHINGTON -- Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer is running for president, but the challenge of getting Republican primary voters to recognize his name is harder for him than most since he can't campaign in Iowa.

"Iowa is a problem for me. I'd love to go," Roemer said.

The problem, Roemer told editorial staff during a 50-minute interview with Fox News on Monday, is he wants to get rid of ethanol subsidies -- and that doesn't play well in the Hawkeye State, where he had visited last month for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition event.

In fact, the former congressman, who served seven years as a House Democrat during the Reagan administration, says he also wants to get rid of oil company subsidies and the recent bank overhaul law and the new health insurance law and most of the tax code, not to mention the influence of money in politics.

The long-shot candidate who's been out of elected office for nearly 20 years, says he's a "special kind of Republican" -- one who had to become a Republican in order to break one-party rule in his home state.

He rails against President Obama, calling him an "embarrassment" for starting his presidential campaign while still trying to develop an annual budget two years before the start of a would-be second term. But he doesn't question Obama's constitutional authority to serve.

"All the evidence I've seen is that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," he said.

He's "not a fan" of the repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy that allows gays to serve openly, but the "generals say that they thought they would make it work," and so he'll wait and see.

He would increase Social Security's solvency by raising the retirement age by one month per year over 24 years -- in other words, raise the age by two years over the next 24.

As a diabetic, he said he has a very real interest in health care reform, but blasts the new law because it does not include tort reform, offers no negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and doesn't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

He fought for the reduction of air pollution while governor of Louisiana, balanced the budget and increased teachers' pay by 30 percent in three years, "if they could teach."

Roemer said he will win people over by cutting through the corruption cash causes and getting back to relying on the free market.

That includes getting rid of oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies. Roemer called them "a gift" that the Big 3 oil companies, Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland don't need.

At the same time, Roemer said he wants a tariff on oil from overseas. That does not include Mexico and Canada, which he would consider domestic oil production sources, but it definitely targets Russia, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East.

"Venezuela's history," he added, though Brazil is a neighbor that could get an exception from a tariff.

Roemer said he will set a deadline to get off foreign oil by the end of the decade from the time he's inaugurated -- hypothetically, January 2013.

He said he would be interested in more oil drilling in North America, both onshore and offshore; favors new nuclear plant construction, especially those that count on gravity and not electricity for water supplies; clean coal, if it's actually a product; and alternative fuel sources.

"The market will determine the price of gas, but the tariff will determine the price of Middle East gas," he said, adding, "Natural gas is the big winner."

On taxes, Roemer said he'd like to slim down the 6,500-page tax code and lower the marginal rate. He would minimize deductions but leave in charitable and medical exemptions and widen the middle class and reduce the government's share of domestic product to 18.5 percent.

"That means everyone's paying a little, but the wealthy are paying a little more," Roemer said. And the tax code will be written so the "average, plain person can actually master" the system.

A banker himself, Roemer said he wants to get rid of "too big to fail" banks, which he claims brought this country to the brink once and are now positioning to do so again.

Roemer argued that the 19 banks on Wall Street all had a hand in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. It's obvious, he said, since according to the law, the larger the bank, the smaller the amount of capital is required.

"The next financial collapse is already in writing," said Roemer, who owns a bank that in the last five years has gone from zero to $688 million in earnings "one good loan at a time."

He's a long shot, to say the least, but Roemer says he has a plan to up his name ID, and it doesn't look like Newt Gingrich's or Mitt Romney's or former President George W. Bush's or Obama's, all whom he called out by name as being beholden to special interests.

His exploratory committee is betting on a retail campaign that targets New Hampshire, South Carolina and yes, Iowa, and thinks he can grab national headlines by asking one in every 100 Americans to give him $100.

That's $300 billion just for the primary. After that, if he gets the nomination, he'll ask two out of every 100 Americans to give him $100. That's $600 billion to compete for the presidency.

"It's about the money. I'm going to spend more money than any candidate but Barack Obama," he said.

The strategy, which Roemer says will enable him to avoid special interests like unions, corporations, political action committees, the Chamber of Commerce or any other group that wants to influence politics, means winning more than 3 million people during the primary, and another 6 million in the general election.****

 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #313 on: May 16, 2011, 10:09:22 AM »

I know no one here has much good to say about Obama, but I think Obama will be hard to beat.  Recent polls show surprising strength.  The economy is still the big issue.

"But the president seems — at least for now — surprisingly immune to economic fears, the poll shows. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of his job, up 7 percentage points from the most recent Battleground Poll, conducted in October. Additionally, 72 percent approve of Obama personally, up 7 percentage points since October.

The president’s strong approval ratings are buttressed by the 59 percent who said they will either “definitely” vote for the president or “consider” reelecting him. Thirty-eight percent “definitely will not” vote for the president’s reelection — giving Obama a higher ceiling of support than his Republican rivals would hope to see."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54996.html



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #314 on: May 16, 2011, 10:09:47 AM »

Well, I don't subscribe to the notion that Huckabee was such a champion of the middle class.  Yet this article highlights what I see as the mainstream Republicans gigantic gap in the failure to explain how their politicies will help the middle class.  They ignore this  at their own peril.  Without addressing this issue in a DIRECT way I continue to contend they will likely lose swing voters and the election.  Big mistake.  Rove's answer is to cave and pander.  Wrong.

www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/16/frum.huckabee.gop/index.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #315 on: May 16, 2011, 10:13:29 AM »

JDN,
Your source is Politico?  They are totally biased.  Any poll from them means little. 
Yet your point is well taken.  There is a segment of swing voters who will change their minds on a dime.  Unfortunately, every election winds up being determined by this "cannot make up their minds" group.

The people who can be fooled all of the time are the ones who determine who our presidents are cry
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #316 on: May 16, 2011, 10:19:17 AM »

The poll was conducted by Democratic firm Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm.

I didn't know Politico was biased.  It's really too early anyway to pay close attention.  But I found it interesting the poll dumped on Trump.  Good riddance. 

YOUR point is well taken; it is a battle for the middle class.  Convince them or fool them, but you need their vote.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #317 on: May 16, 2011, 10:43:50 AM »

"the poll dumped on Trump"

It seems Trump has become the whipping boy for the left and the right.

David Gregory asking Newt if he thinks Trump is a serious candidate.  I wonder if ever asked a Dem candidate if he/she thought Al Sharpton a serious candidate?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #318 on: May 16, 2011, 11:08:04 AM »

Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them.  Today one side is fixated on persuasion the other is re-sharpening their skills on the dupe.
-----
The capture of Saddam had a 7 week bump.  OBL is bigger and the mission was more impressive.  Let a couple months and a couple of new policy fights go by.  Let's see what polls are saying at the end of the summer.

The one who "assembled the team" and "directed the mission" is the same one who hasn't even started to dither on Syria - or private sector U.S. investment and jobs.  Even a Middle East on fire won't hit home like the new, record levels of the broader Misery Index measures. 

HW Bush still had good likability when the voters decided they were done with him as President.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #319 on: May 16, 2011, 11:12:43 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/15/george_will_next_president_will_be_obama_daniels_or_pawlenty.html

“This is the most open scramble on the Republican side since 1940 when Wendell Willkie came out of the woodwork and swept the field,” Will said. “I think — people are complaining this is not off to a brisk start. I think that’s wrong. I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, [former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels. I think that’s it.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #320 on: May 16, 2011, 11:17:26 AM »

Bush 1 lost because of Perot.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #321 on: May 16, 2011, 12:07:55 PM »

"Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them"

Well, I haven't heard anyone yet who seems to be convincing the middle class or those in the middle - yet.
I haven't even heard a Republican even trying.  That's the problem.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #322 on: May 17, 2011, 12:33:50 PM »



"[The President] is the dignified, but accountable magistrate of a free and great people. The tenure of his office, it is true, is not hereditary; nor is it for life: but still it is a tenure of the noblest kind: by being the man of the people, he is invested; by continuing to be the man of the people, his investiture will be voluntarily, and cheerfully, and honourably renewed." --James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791


Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #323 on: May 17, 2011, 04:23:35 PM »

"Good Presidents persuade the middle and bad ones dupe them"

Well, I haven't heard anyone yet who seems to be convincing the middle class or those in the middle - yet.
I haven't even heard a Republican even trying.  That's the problem.

CCP seems to be leading the charge, but unfortunately, no one seems to be listening.


With no Huckabee, who in GOP will stand for jobs, middle class?
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
May 17, 2011 12:30 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
David Frum: Huckabee's announcement he won't run for president opens GOP void
Huckabee had his flaws, but got job and mobility concerns of the middle class
GOP candidates seem out of touch with Americans' worries on housing, jobs, economy
Frum: Democratic fixes mean taxes, regulation. Not great, but where are the fixes from GOP?
Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.


(CNN) -- The exit of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from the 2012 presidential race opens a huge void in the Republican field.
Who now will speak to the concerns of middle-class American families?
There were many flaws in Huckabee's 2008 candidacy. His cultural message was too reactionary. His so-called Fair Tax was an ill-considered gimmick. His foreign policy background was too thin.
But of all the candidates in that year of economic crisis, Huckabee was unequaled in showing understanding and regard for those families getting by on incomes of five figures and not six, seven, eight or nine.
Now in 2011, the Republican candidates have wandered even further from middle-class concerns.

You hear more from this field about imaginary threats to the Constitution than about real threats to middle-class wages. More about the gold standard than about educational standards. More about eliminating Planned Parenthood than about improving health care coverage.

Meanwhile the American middle class faces its harshest challenge since the Great Depression.
From 2000 to 2007 -- before the onset of the recession -- the median wage actually declined and the average family's debt burden grew heavier.
Then came the economic crisis: 8 million jobs lost in half a year. Housing values collapsed. Savings disappeared.
While the unemployment numbers have improved a little recently, a cohort of young Americans risk losing half a decade of their lives to chronic under-employment -- even as workers 55 and older face prematurely and permanently reduced incomes.
And even as jobs return, it's not clear that incomes will recover.

There's accumulating evidence that upward mobility has broken down in this society. Poorer Americans find it harder to escape poverty than they did a generation ago. More bitter still, there is evidence that people born poor in America find it harder to escape poverty than do people born poor in many European societies, including those supposed backwaters of socialist stagnation, Germany and France.

The Democratic Party responds to those social challenges by offering more government, more regulation and more taxes. These are not Republican answers, obviously.
But what are the Republican answers? And who will offer them?
If Huckabee will not be that candidate, then who will?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #324 on: May 17, 2011, 04:28:40 PM »

Gee, might be good to have someone with an extensive business background as president.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #325 on: May 17, 2011, 05:44:56 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/17/huntsman-i-believe-in-climate-change-because-90-of-scientists-do/

Oh great.  rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #326 on: May 18, 2011, 07:50:40 AM »

"With no Huckabee, who in GOP will stand for jobs, middle class?
By David Frum,"

All of them do, just not in the class warfare manner he might like.  He hits it right in the closing.  If more government, more regulation and more taxes are what people want, it most certainly will be there for you on the ballot.  Just hopefully not on the Republican side.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #327 on: May 19, 2011, 03:16:23 PM »

"But what are the Republican answers? And who will offer them?"

Well we have gigantic centralized government with confiscation and wealth transfer on the Dem side and on the Republican side with strict Reaganism we have the theory that we need just open the spigits and let the wealth concentrate at the top and trickle down.  I know the wealthy pay the bulk of taxes already but I think most people think the game is too rigged in their favor.
(As a victim of organized crime I see first hand how it can work)

Now we can argue about how well Reaganomics works, and please don't get me wrong, I voted and loved Reagan but I fear and recognize there are a lot of people in the middle who are struggling more and more to pay bills, education, taxes etc. and skeptical that either the Dem or the Rep. theory is going to help them.

I really think if Republicans offer a philosophy that all classes get equal justice (I know this may be more idealistic more than realistic) and an equal playing field than maybe, just maybe, the Repubs can finally get that undecided group of voters to buy in rather than waffle back and forth from one party to the other with whatever sounds/feels good on a given day.

Doug, you rightly point out the disgrace that wealthy people can have bribing local governments  to literally force people off their property  for business deals.  Well this is a local issue I guess but this has got to stop.  This is one example of unfairness due to economic class. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #328 on: May 19, 2011, 07:41:17 PM »

"...if Republicans offer a philosophy that all classes get equal justice (I know this may be more idealistic more than realistic) and an equal playing field..."
   - Yes, yes, yes!  All the targeted goodies, takings and policies that require waivers are exactly the opposite.

"Doug, you rightly point out the disgrace that wealthy people can have bribing local governments  to literally force people off their property  for business deals.  Well this is a local issue I guess but this has got to stop.  This is one example of unfairness due to economic class."
------

No.  Unfairness due to bad governing policies.  I don't blame the rich for buying what was made legal and available to them.  I blame the Justices on the court who fail to recognize liberty and oppose tyranny.

It starts with Presidents appointing justices who respect founding principles, and they have not.  Then moves to the Senate confirm that we are continuing founding principles for a new justice's lifetime, and they have not.  Choosing Justices is right above Commander in Chief in the importance of Presidential duties IMO.  Also the most important vote of each Senator.

I wasted years studying the economic relationships of scarcity, demand, products, services, behavior of willing sellers and price theory only to now live in a country where transactions are decided by a politburo of elitists, who know best which private party is best suited to own which parcel.  The Court approved the power of local government to change private ownership by coercion based on money and false promises - the land at Kelo v. New London CT is still bulldozed and vacant.  They can declare my property no longer mine and your property no longer yours; decide it would be better used by someone else, then pay unjust compensation determined another panel of elitists who know better than a market what a life savings or a family home is worth.  That isn't the fault of people who covet.  It is the failure of the people sworn to uphold our guarantee against oppression and tyranny to do so.

Hard to say what these elitists who place no value on consent in transactions or privacy in our homes and businesses deserve.  One thought is to have Governor Huckebee pardon some inmates to move into their homes and offices to enjoy some legalized, unconsensual activity.  When they are done we can ask the inmates to send over what they think is 'just compensation'.

The deciding vote in Kelo was Justice Kennedy who sits in the seat President Reagan chose Robert Bork to serve.  VP Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee that invented the process called 'Borking' a candidate, elevating judicial nomination discord and leading to legalized private takings. President Obama in his minute in the senate, besides voting against raising the debt ceiling, voted against both Supreme Court nominees of his predecessor.  People say conservatives need to compromise more and reach to the middle to win.  With wins like these, how will we know when we lose.
------
In comparison to Reagan's time, we have the opportunity next year to choose someone who will govern where Reagan would like to have governed instead of where he did.  And they don't Reagan's charisma to pull it off.  Just a clear and focused return to basic common sense and time tested principles.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 07:45:26 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #329 on: May 19, 2011, 08:32:36 PM »

"I blame the Justices on the court who fail to recognize liberty and oppose tyranny."

Thanks for clarifying.  It has been more a travesty of the judicial branch. I see what you mean.

"VP Biden was head of the Judiciary Committee that invented the process called 'Borking'"

I didn't remember that.  Don't hear that much from the VP gaf in chief.  I guess they told him to stay shut and out of the news.

" People say conservatives need to compromise more and reach to the middle to win."

I no longer believe in this.  I realize there essentially *is no* compromise with the liberals.  No matter what, they relentlessly continue on their quest to control every aspect of the lives of the world's peoples.  Compromise and they simply take credit for the compromise and begin shoving more of their agenda down our throats the next day.  That is why I like Dick Morris better than Karl Rove.  The former seems more willing to fight for principles and convince people they are right where the latter seems to find ways for the Republicans to pander.  Just my impression.  I would kind of like to see if Morris could hook up with Gingrich.  I know most on this board don't like the Newt but want to give him a chance.   I think Morris could help him along with others who would protect him - from himself.  However, I don't know if Newt has the ego for constructive "management" so to speak.

FWIW my thinking is we don't compromise on principles.  But the principles and rules  are level for all - rich and poor.  I am not against the rich.  But I am against a system that allows famous wealthy celebrities paying 1/50th of the real estate tax in NJ than I pay for a property that is probably 1/100 the size of theirs.  I think if Republicans can highlight this they may be able to shed the image of being just for the rich.  They are for all of us.  They are the gardians of the people - not a class.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #330 on: May 20, 2011, 11:22:32 AM »

From 'The Way Forward' April 21, 2010,  Freki: "I am from Texas and I don't like Perry.  He is a POLITICIAN = weasel.  I do not trust him.  I am a conservative and I did not vote for him in the primary.  If he gets the Republican nomination for Pres he will be better than a liberal but I would classify him as a progressive republican.  Voter beware.  IMHO  - Freki
-------

Commentators are observing that Rick Perry is saying he is out but acting like he is in.  The weasel/politician comment is consistent with that.  There aren't many big names or big state, multiple term Governors left to enter. 

I wrote that I would support our former gov. Pawlenty as conservative enough and possibly electable, but many MN conservatives dislike him and say similar things to Freki's comments on Perry.  I've also shared the story that I was wearing his conservative opponent's sticker on my lapel when I first met him.  OTOH, Pawlenty was house majority leader at the time, won that election and reelection and got things done, like fighting off further moves to the left in the land of 10,000 taxes.  His conservative primary opponent was an outsider, a common sense businessman who got painted early as the scary extremist in the race, not by Pawlenty but by the media and by association.

From Freki or anyone, looking for more details and examples on Perry.  The politician thing is only partly a negative for this job, someone has to do it  wink and the weasel is a clever and successful creature able to prey on animals larger than themselves... 

Texas seems to be the leading state in the nation now after California fell off the edge.  The deadline for a serious campaign I'm guessing is probably early Sept.  If Perry gets in, it could be with a steamroller of momentum.  The more informed we are when it happens, the better off we will be.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #331 on: May 20, 2011, 02:45:48 PM »

I listened with astonishment to hear Morris call Bachman "brilliant" on O'Reilly yesterday.  Even Bill asked, "brilliant?"
Perhaps Morris sees more than I do.  I certainly hope he is right.  Perhaps she has more potential than I have see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgTUIcY2Dk

OTOH is Morris just bucking for a job?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #332 on: May 20, 2011, 04:08:49 PM »

I listened with astonishment to hear Morris call Bachman "brilliant" on O'Reilly yesterday.  Even Bill asked, "brilliant?"
Perhaps Morris sees more than I do.  I certainly hope he is right.  Perhaps she has more potential than I have see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWgTUIcY2Dk

OTOH is Morris just bucking for a job?

I'd like to see the evidence he'd cite to support that claim. I don't hate her by any means, but I don't have that word jumping out at me when I see her speak.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #333 on: May 20, 2011, 04:21:44 PM »

"I don't have that word jumping out at me when I see her speak"

My thought exactly.  cheesy

Perhaps there is some sort of analogy with Nancy Pelosi here?

Everytime I ever heard Nancy Pelosi speak all I could think of is how in the world could this idiot become speaker of the House of Representatives.  ONe could only conclude she has some genious talent to get things done behind the scenes that is not reflected in her public personna. huh

Perhaps Bachman is a real talent behind the scenes that we don't see.  Morris points out SHE is the one running the Tea party movement in Congress.  If she is really the genius he describes her as, we should, I think expect her to get better and better.

I hope he is right.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #334 on: May 20, 2011, 04:25:20 PM »

Dennis Miller had a funny line about Nanzi Pelosi. Something along the lines about how that permanent surprised look on her face was the result of her not being able to believe she was ever put in a position of power.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #335 on: May 20, 2011, 04:39:08 PM »

Based upon what I have seen and heard so far I like Michelle Bachman quite a bit.  I wish she had executive experience and a sense of time and depth dedicated to thinking about foreign affairs.  That said, I find her articulate, and respect what it takes to get a masters degree it tax law and what it takes to be a federal tax litigation attorney.  These things bespeak a not common level of intellectual rigor and an ability to think mathematically as well as a certain level of killer instinct-- which I mean in a good way.   The 5 children and 23 foster children partenting is quite an immunization shot against many forms of Dem demogoguery, as is being a woman.   Morris's comment about a Bachman-Cain ticket is intriguing-- for Cain has formidable private sector executive experience, and is the immunization shot against Dem race-baiting.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #336 on: May 20, 2011, 04:52:39 PM »

"The 5 children and 23 foster children partenting is quite an immunization shot against many forms of Dem demogoguery, as is being a woman."

Ask Gov. Palin how that has has worked out for her.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #337 on: May 20, 2011, 05:07:07 PM »


"for Cain has formidable private sector executive experience, and is the immunization shot against Dem race-baiting."

Not so much. Remember, as far as the left is concerned, it's ok to be racist towards a minority who dares to hold a conservative political opinion, just ask Michelle Malkin.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/15/the-strange-racist-attack-on-herman-cain/

 







Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #338 on: May 20, 2011, 06:07:01 PM »

One point IMO with Bachmann-Cain is that it is upset down.  He is the executive.

I have defended Bachmann plenty, mostly because she is criticized so strongly.  She is smart and conservative but a bit of a lightning rod for liberals and independents who hate and distrust anyone or anything far right.  A few gaffes along the way, but has done plenty of good for the conservative cause.  Her opponents for her congressional seat keep underestimating her as she keeps winning reelection against huge liberal money in Minnesota's most conservative district, the so-called x-urbs, a ring across the northern metro and outward.

GM is right on both counts.  Cain somehow gets no credit for being black and hugely successful because he is a conservative.  Bachmann, like Palin, is a freak to ordinary liberal to independent women for raising so many children and having conservative views especially in education.

She is somewhat self-appointed as a tea party leader.  I like Marco Rubio's explanation of not joining that legislative group.  Paraphrasing: the tea party by definition is the grass roots leading the elected officials, not the other way around.  Taking that distinction further, I would say that Rubio with a million vote win in a key swing state is an example of attracting people to the movement, while Bachmann is well liked I think only by people who are already very conservative.  Bachmann could not similarly be elected to the senate in Minnesota.

For Bachmann, not brilliant, but the smartest person in the room in this youtube committee hearing clip with Barney Frank presiding and Bachmann questions Bernanke and Geithner about the constitutionality of all the tarp funds and federal bailouts of non-financial institutions.  Bernanke at least had an answer.  Geithner is a blathering idiot and Barney Frank's talk at the end is beyond words.:
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 06:10:19 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #339 on: May 20, 2011, 10:44:52 PM »

Regarding race baiting of conservative blacks and sexism against conservative women:  Yes of course this happens-- but my sense of things is that the rubber band on this sort of excrement is about to snap back-- people are getting fed up with this crap and Bachman and Cain are ideally suited to be the tip of the spear on this IMHO.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #340 on: May 21, 2011, 11:02:00 AM »

Regarding race baiting of conservative blacks and sexism against conservative women:  Yes of course this happens-- but my sense of things is that the rubber band on this sort of excrement is about to snap back-- people are getting fed up with this crap and Bachman and Cain are ideally suited to be the tip of the spear on this IMHO.

You make a good point.  Also for the next year Republicans will be judged by the field of candidates, not the nominee.  Nothing looks more stereotypical than having 12-16 white guys on the stage for a year, all wearing the same suit, same tie, same age, same background, and saying the same things.

Obama's dual base of rich elitist whites along with the unproductive inner city vote of all colors is mostly not going to switch teams; they've just lost enthusiasm because the expectation of getting big results for doing nothing is gone.  The ground game in the inner city is still ACORN, the anti-capitalism, pro-big-government and welfare rights organization but under a new name.  They will be supporting leftism over color.  Likewise for the ground game within academia, teachers union etc.

A ray of hope with young voters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110520/pl_dailycaller/recentcollegegradssouronobamasurveyssay;_ylt=Ase0UH_am0IDPFioAHCKdJSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTNtaDU5ajA0BGFzc2V0A2RhaWx5Y2FsbGVyLzIwMTEwNTIwL3JlY2VudGNvbGxlZ2VncmFkc3NvdXJvbm9iYW1hc3VydmV5c3NheQRwb3MDMTUE

Recent college grads sour on Obama, surveys say

A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.

“These rock-solid Obama constituents are free-agents,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, based in Washington, D.C. She recently completed a large survey of college grads, and “they’re shopping around, considering their options, [and] a fair number will say at home and sit it out,” she said.

The scope of this disengagement from Obama is suggested by an informal survey of 500 post-grads by Joe Maddalone, founder of Maddalone Global Strategies. Of his sample, 93 percent are aged between 22 and 28, 67 percent are male and 83 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But only 27 percent are committed to voting for Obama again, and 80 percent said they would consider voting for a Republican, said New York-based Maddalone.

That’s a drop of almost 60 points in support for Obama among this influential class of younger post-grad voters,
------

The challenge as posed in the first paragraph is to get a significant portion of these people who are tempted to sit out converted over to pro-growth, limited government conservatism.  If they just sit out a cycle, Republicans could win this one by default, but the seesaw battle of stagnation, hating incumbents and getting nothing good accomplished continues.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4163


« Reply #341 on: May 21, 2011, 12:05:29 PM »

"They will be supporting leftism over color"

Exactly.  We must not conclude the Blacks are so overwhelmingly supporting Bama because he is black but because he is for liberalism and confiscation/redistribution of wealth. 

Evidence speaking to this is their previous support for Clinton throughout the 90's.

Further evidence is their relative silence for any Black who happens to be conservative - Colin Powell (in the past), West, Cain, Condolezza Rice, etc.  It is remarkable to see the adoration of Michelle Bama from the hoards of minorities yet we/I (at least) do not recall ever seeing one picture of them ever adulating any conservative Black with incredible achievements.

To them conservative Blacks are Uncle Toms.  IMO they shoot themselves in the head by doing this.  The progressive movement is destroying America JUST when the Blacks are finally achieving their due.  Their support of illegals because illegals and their kids tend to support Democratic party issues is definitely suicidal.  The people from overseas are not interested in American Blacks.  Indeed they just want the money and the pie and many clearly are not interested in American values at all that I can see.

 

It is the money (economy) stupid. 
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #342 on: May 22, 2011, 11:42:44 AM »

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55424.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #343 on: May 22, 2011, 05:56:12 PM »

I tuned in at the awkward moment described at the first link where Cain appeared to not know what Chris Wallace meant by 'right of return' in the Israel-Palestinian issue.  Wallace jumped back in to elaborated as he was not looking for a gotcha moment to advance his career (unlike Gibson, Couric with Palin) and since there is more than one right of return issue possible.  Cain still looked a bit lost for details.

On Afghanistan, I have previously appreciated his point about people without all the information second guessing the war effort and strategy.  However... running for Commander in Chief, communicator in chief, he should have plenty to say about goals, decision criteria, etc. for a question about America's longest running war.

Did anyone see the entire interview?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-i-would-offer-palestinians-nothing-for-peace-they-dont-want-peace/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/22/herman_cain_would_offer_palestinians_nothing_in_peace_deal.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6034


« Reply #344 on: May 24, 2011, 11:43:28 AM »

Tim Pawlenty announced he was turning against ethanol supports - in Iowa - yesterday, announcing support for raising the retirement age - in Florida - today, and unveiling his plans on financial reforms - on Wall Street - tomorrow. 

Courage to Stand.

What did O'bama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid get done this week?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #345 on: May 24, 2011, 11:50:34 AM »

You mean aside from threatening Israel's survival? Let's give credit when it's due.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #346 on: May 24, 2011, 01:33:22 PM »

Doug:  I recorded the Wallace interview of Cain and finally got to watch it.  Not knowing the phrase "right of return" is pretty discouraging.  I respect the point about not having intel on Afghanistan, but not to have something to say at all e.g. about basic thoughts concerning the Islamo-fascist threat is really discouraging.  Also from a former Fed chairman I would have expected more articulate economic commentary. 

Maybe as he gets a bit warmed up he will do better and become worthy of the VP slot , , ,

Viz Pawlenty:  That sounds like a real good start!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12084


« Reply #347 on: May 24, 2011, 02:32:30 PM »

I tuned in at the awkward moment described at the first link where Cain appeared to not know what Chris Wallace meant by 'right of return' in the Israel-Palestinian issue.  Wallace jumped back in to elaborated as he was not looking for a gotcha moment to advance his career (unlike Gibson, Couric with Palin) and since there is more than one right of return issue possible.  Cain still looked a bit lost for details.

On Afghanistan, I have previously appreciated his point about people without all the information second guessing the war effort and strategy.  However... running for Commander in Chief, communicator in chief, he should have plenty to say about goals, decision criteria, etc. for a question about America's longest running war.

Did anyone see the entire interview?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-i-would-offer-palestinians-nothing-for-peace-they-dont-want-peace/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/22/herman_cain_would_offer_palestinians_nothing_in_peace_deal.html

Oof. I'm starting to think the republican party is the new "Not Ready for Prime-Time Players". Cain should have learned from Palin, better be on your A-game at all times. I bet Cain could tell you that the US doesn't have 57 states, and knows the year he's in http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/24/the-obligatory-obama-thinks-its-still-2008-post/comment-page-1/#comments but the Obama state media won't cover that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #348 on: May 25, 2011, 12:05:30 PM »

Many of the Republican presidential hopefuls should be able to beat President Obama in 2012. This president has a track record now and, thus, many vulnerabilities. If he is not our "worst president," as Donald Trump would have it, his sweeping domestic initiatives—especially his stimulus package and health-care reform—were so jerry-built and high-handed that they generated a virtual revolution in America's normally subdued middle class.

The president's success in having Osama bin Laden killed is an exception to a pattern of excruciatingly humble and hesitant leadership abroad. Mr. Obama has been deeply ambivalent about the application of American power, as if a shameful "neocolonialism" attends every U.S. action in the world. In Libya he seems actually to want American power to diminish altogether.

This formula of shrinking American power abroad while expanding government power at home confuses and disappoints many Americans. Before bin Laden, 69% of Americans believed the country was on the wrong track, according to an Ipsos survey. A recent Zogby poll found that only 38% of respondents believed Mr. Obama deserved a second term, while 55% said they wanted someone new.

And yet Republicans everywhere ask, "Who do we have to beat him?" In head-to-head matchups, Mr. Obama beats all of the Republican hopefuls in most polls.

The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama's utter confusion in the face of the "Arab spring" has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why?

There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling.

What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy.

Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it.

View Full Image

Getty Images
 .He is also an extraordinary personification of the American Dream: Even someone from a race associated with slavery can rise to the presidency. Whatever disenchantment may surround the man, there is a distinct national pride in having elected him.

All of this adds up to a powerful racial impressionism that works against today's field of Republican candidates. This is the impressionism that framed Sen. John McCain in 2008 as a political and cultural redundancy—yet another older white male presuming to lead the nation.

The point is that anyone who runs against Mr. Obama will be seen through the filter of this racial impressionism, in which white skin is redundant and dark skin is fresh and exceptional. This is the new cultural charisma that the president has introduced into American politics.

Today this charisma is not as strong for Mr. Obama. The mere man and the actual president has not lived up to his billing as a historical breakthrough. Still, the Republican field is framed and—as the polls show—diminished by his mere presence in office, which makes America the most socially evolved nation in the world. Moreover, the mainstream media coddle Mr. Obama—the man—out of its identification with his exceptionalism.

Conversely, the media hold the president's exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans' quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants.

How can the GOP combat the president's cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action.

A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness.

Mr. McCain let himself be intimidated by Obama's cultural charisma, threatening to fire any staff member who even used the candidate's middle name. Donald Trump shot to the head of the Republican line by focusing on Mr. Obama as a president, calling him our "worst" president. I carry no brief for Mr. Trump, but his sudden success makes a point: Another kind of charisma redounds to those willing to challenge political correctness—those unwilling to be in thrall to the president's cultural charisma.

Lastly, there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn't there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren't Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy?

In other words, isn't there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Among his books is "White Guilt" (Harper/Collins, 2007).

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31552


« Reply #349 on: May 27, 2011, 05:10:14 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bachmann-reveals-plans-presidential-announcement-in-iowa-next-month/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!