Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2014, 07:34:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83142 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 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 137429 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #450 on: June 29, 2011, 09:13:24 PM »

I saw a snippet yesterday where the question of his "low macho factor" came up.  His answer"

"You've got to be kidding.  I used to play hockey and I probably have been in more fights than the rest of the candidates combined."

I liked him in that moment  grin
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #451 on: June 29, 2011, 09:15:03 PM »

The real tough guys are usually quiet and soft spoken, from what I've seen.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #452 on: June 29, 2011, 09:23:11 PM »

While I agree the "real tough guys are usually quiet and soft spoken, from what I've seen." this is not a barroom fight.  It's a fight in the media. 
I wish he would listen to his advisors and step it up a little.  He has a great message, he is qualified, and I would consider voting for him.  But as of now, he's going no where.

If you don't get the votes, who cares about your message.  Time to be a little outspoken and dynamic (if possible) I would say.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #453 on: June 30, 2011, 01:03:32 AM »

People that have played hockey with the governor might suggest regarding his hockey and fighting skills that he not quit his day job. smiley  Good answer though.  He didn't play Herb Brooks 'Miracle on ice' level hockey nor was he a Derek Boogaard level fighter but hockey does toughen you, it's all teamwork and you learn (political analogy) that if you keep your balance and keep your head on straight going into the collisions you can be the one still standing after a big hit.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #454 on: June 30, 2011, 04:23:56 AM »

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628?page=1

Nerves Show on Team Obama

Recent scrambling by the president’s political advisers indicates they’re very worried about his reelection chances.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #455 on: June 30, 2011, 05:49:54 PM »

By KARL ROVE
High unemployment, anemic growth, defections in key groups such as independents and Hispanics, and unpopular policies are among the reasons President Obama is unlikely to win re-election. But likely to lose is far from certain to lose. If Republicans make enough unforced errors, Mr. Obama could win.

The first such mistake would be forgetting that the target voters are those ready to swing away from Mr. Obama (independents, Hispanics, college educated and young voters) and those whose opposition to Mr. Obama has deepened since 2008 (seniors and working-class voters).

These voters gave the GOP a big win in the 2010 midterm. They are deeply concerned about the economy, jobs, spending, deficits and health care. Many still like Mr. Obama personally but disapprove of his handling of the issues. They are not GOP primary voters, but they are watching the contest. The Republican Party will find it more difficult to gain their support if its nominee adopts a tone that's harshly negative and personally anti-Obama.

The GOP nominee should fiercely challenge Mr. Obama's policies, actions and leadership using the president's own words, but should stay away from questioning his motives, patriotism or character. He will do this to his GOP opponent to try to draw Republicans into the mud pit. They should avoid it.

It won't be easy. Mr. Obama can't win re-election by trumpeting his achievements. And he has decided against offering a bold agenda for a second term: That was evident in his State of the Union emphasis on high-speed rail, high-speed Internet and "countless" green jobs.

Instead, backed by a brutally efficient opposition research unit, the president will use focus-group tested lines of attack to disqualify the Republican nominee by questioning his or her values, intentions and intelligence.

Republicans should avoid giving him mistakes to pounce on and should stand up to this withering assault, always looking for ways to turn it back on Mr. Obama and his record. The GOP candidate must express disappointment and regret, not disgust and anger, especially in the debates. Ronald Reagan's cheery retorts to Jimmy Carter's often-petty attacks are a good model. Any day that isn't a referendum on the Obama presidency should be considered wasted.

Republicans also must not confuse the tea party movement with the larger, more important tea party sentiment. As important as tea party groups are, and for all the energy and passion they bring, for every person who showed up at a tea party rally there were dozens more who didn't but who share the deep concerns about Mr. Obama's profligate spending, record deficits and monstrous health-care bill.

The GOP candidate must stay focused on this broader tea party sentiment, not just the organized groups, especially when some of them stray from the priorities that gave rise to them (for example, adopting such causes as the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established election of U.S. senators by popular vote). The broader sentiment is what swung independents so solidly into the GOP column last fall.
=========
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).

Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.
===============

.The GOP nominee could also lose if the Republican National Committee (RNC) and battleground-state party committees don't respond to the Obama grass-roots operation with a significant effort of their own. The GOP had the edge in grass-roots identification, persuasion, registration and turnout efforts in 2000 and 2004. It lost these advantages in 2008, big time, in part because its candidate didn't emphasize the grass roots. It must regain them in 2012. Only the RNC and the state party committees can effectively plan, fund and execute these efforts.

Finally, Republicans cannot play it safe. It is tempting to believe that Mr. Obama is so weak, the economy so fragile, that attacking him is all that's needed. Applying relentless pressure on the president is necessary but insufficient. Setting forth an alternative vision to Mr. Obama's will be required as well. Voters are looking for a serious GOP governing agenda as a reason to turn Mr. Obama out of office.

Failing to offer a well-thought-out vision and defend it against Mr. Obama's inevitable distortions, demagoguery and straw-man arguments would put the GOP nominee in the position of Thomas Dewey in 1948, whose strategy of running out the clock gave President Harry Truman the opening he needed.

Mr. Obama could have enjoyed the advantage of incumbency—with its power to set the agenda and dominate the stage—until next spring when the GOP nomination will be settled. Instead he prematurely abandoned the stance of an assured public leader to become an aggressive political candidate. Now his re-election depends on political rivals making significant errors. That's dangerous for any politician, but given his Oval Office record, Mr. Obama may have no other viable strategy.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #456 on: June 30, 2011, 05:52:51 PM »

The GOP has demonstrated an incredible talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It'd be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #457 on: June 30, 2011, 06:17:37 PM »

Very early info while Bachmann is the hot ticket of the moment pulling roughly even with Romney.  The favorables/unfavorables also tell something about how the candidates are being received in Iowa:
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #458 on: June 30, 2011, 08:12:09 PM »

With Bachmann and Pawlenty at the top, I wonder if this says more about proximity to Iowa than anything else.

Also, it should be noted that the winner in Iowa rarely goes on to the White House.  However, a poor showing in Iowa can sound the death knell of a campaign. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #459 on: July 01, 2011, 07:08:48 AM »

Native Iowan would not be Bachmann's pitch if she were running for one of Minnesota's far left senate seats.  She also would start as a 20 point underdog with no second chance to make a first impression.

The proximity makes visiting easier for Pawlenty in particular, also Bachmann once congress finishes business and goes on recess.  

During Pawlenty's time as Governor I doubt many Iowans were aware of him.  I needed google to remember who is governor of Iowa now.  Different markets. Other than the visits, Iowans see these folks on the same national shows as everyone else.  Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani, even Ron Paul - all had higher total numbers of familiarity in Iowa than Pawlenty and Bachmann.  

One thing striking from the poll is that people thought it was impossible to oppose ethanol subsidies in Iowa.  Pawlenty did that in his Des Moines announcement speech.  58-13 favorable means he survived that but hasn't broken through for other reasons.

The second point of BD is very true.  The straw poll tells us something about the activist part of the conservative electorate, but is nothing like a full primary or general election so it has a different winner, see 2007 below.  For every candidate, even the winner in Iowa, it is all about gaining traction. The activists this year are like kids in a candy store with Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul all coming through, plus Sarah Palin and perhaps Rick Perry.  Pawlenty courts those people but probably needs to pull more first ballot support from Romney and Newt's numbers to gain anything.  His real problem is how to gain any traction in places like NH and SC if he has no positive headline coming out of Iowa.

Still, it's the flirting and courting stage.  There will be a couple more momentum shifts before the main events.  I wouldn't have predicted McCain or Obama in 2008 - and neither did Iowa in August 11, 2007:
Place    Candidate    Votes    Percentage
1    Mitt Romney    4,516    31.6%
2    Mike Huckabee    2,587    18.1%
3    Sam Brownback    2,192    15.3%
4    Tom Tancredo    1,961    13.7%
5    Ron Paul    1,305    9.1%
6    Tommy Thompson    1,039    7.3%
7    Fred Thompson    203    1.4%
8    Rudy Giuliani    183    1.3%
9    Duncan Hunter    174    1.2%
10    John McCain    101    0.7%

OTOH, McCain perhaps thought he was clever to skip Iowa and focus on New Hampshire, but in Nov he lost both states by 9-10 points.  The goal of 2012 is not to become the McCain or Dukakis of our time.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 07:17:49 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #460 on: July 01, 2011, 12:02:58 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiO2iwAgbFs&feature=player_embedded

Of course, you have to be present, if you are even going to vote present.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #461 on: July 06, 2011, 07:01:35 AM »

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_1/Are-Obama-Polls-Worse-Than-Meet-the-Eye-207006-1.html

On their face, President Barack Obama's poll numbers are mediocre but not terrible. His 46 percent job approval in the June 15-19 Pew Research Center survey is far better than President George W. Bush's worst Pew Research Center job numbers, for example.
 
In March of 2006, Bush's job approval fell to 33 percent in Pew polling, and immediately before the 2008 elections, in late October, his job approval stood at 20 percent, while a stunning 70 percent disapproved. In December 2008, as he was about to leave office, Bush's job ratings stood at 24 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval.

In comparison with those numbers, Obama looks wildly popular.

But Obama continues to earn much higher marks, in part, because his base, including liberal Democrats and African-Americans, has been standing by him, which has tended to prevent his overall job approval numbers from falling as much as they otherwise might.

For example, while Obama's job approval in the Pew survey stood at 46 percent among all adults, it was 87 percent among African-Americans and 81 percent among liberal Democrats.

In comparison, the president's job approval stood at 77 percent among all Democrats, at just 42 percent among independents and at a weak 39 percent among white independents.

Bush couldn't count on the support of a group the way Obama can count on support among African-Americans, who have a strong incentive to see the president in a positive light.

Many of Bush's previously strongest supporters had turned on him by the time the final months of his presidency rolled around. In December 2008, for example, his job ratings among conservative Republicans stood at 66 percent approval and 25 percent disapproval. In comparison, Obama's disapproval among African-Americans was a minuscule 5 percent in the mid-June Pew Research poll.

Because that likely won't happen to Obama, his overall job numbers aren't as useful in understanding his political standing as Bush's were. With Obama, independent voters or even white voters, who still constitute close to three-quarters of the national electorate, provide a better measure of the president's political prospects than do his overall job approval numbers.

In the 2008 national exit poll, Obama won independents, 52 percent to 44 percent, over Republican nominee John McCain. In the recent Pew Research Center survey, only 42 percent of independents said they approved of the president's performance, while 46 percent disapproved.

Of course, all of the president's numbers could change between now and November 2012, but for now, they constitute a considerable problem for him, since independents are a key swing constituency and Obama's strong showing among swing voters was one of the most important reasons why he did so well overall and in key states such as Ohio and Florida.

Obama's problem is also apparent when looking at his standing among white independents. McCain narrowly won the group 49 percent to 47 percent. But in the Pew survey, only 39 percent of white independents approve of the president's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove.

The Pew survey has another interesting number that is worth noting.

The survey found that 46 percent of respondents think the economic condition of the economy is "poor," compared with 8 percent who said either "excellent" or "good" and 45 percent who said "only fair."

But if you look at the cross-tabs provided in the analysis, only 37 percent of Democrats said that the economy is poor, while 52 percent of Republicans picked that description and 50 percent of independents called it poor.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #462 on: July 06, 2011, 09:17:01 AM »

8% say the economy is good?  That number seems high, are we measuring sense of humor?

87% approval among blacks? Yes, but they won't show up in anywhere near the same numbers as 2008.  The excitement is gone.  Black unemployment is way up.  Obama is the first (half)black President and that was historic, but nothing magical came to them for it.  Blacks as a group fare better like everyone else in pro-growth times like under Presidents Reagan and Clinton  than under Obama.  Obama may win 87% of blacks or more in exit polls, but far lower in number of votes than in 2008.

The comparison to Bush at 20-24% approval is in the 2006-2008 period, not 2004.  Conservatives turned against Bush after reelection while liberals at this point believe Obama is their best and only bet.

Bush approvals in 2004 were roughly where Obama is now (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm).  2004 was about war but Bush had pro-growth policies kicking in by that time while Obama has put nothing in motion to grow the economy, is still working further on an anti-growth agenda (spread the prosperity), and recession fatigue has already set in.

Pretty hard to say 'stay the course' when no one can identify in a positive way what the course is. 

The only campaign slogan they have come up with so far is that everything was far worse than we thought when we got here (Bush's fault).

Missing from the Republican campaigns IMO is any attempt to pin some blame for the 2008 financial collapse onto the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress that took Washington by storm in Nov 2006, promising anti-growth / anti-productive investment measures, right when unemployment was at its lowest point.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #463 on: July 06, 2011, 09:53:01 AM »

8% say the economy is good?  That number seems high, are we measuring sense of humor?

smiley Even I have to agree, saying "the economy is good" is pretty funny.

Missing from the Republican campaigns IMO is any attempt to pin some blame for the 2008 financial collapse onto the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress that took Washington by storm in Nov 2006, promising anti-growth / anti-productive investment measures, right when unemployment was at its lowest point.

That is the key.  Obama will get the black vote, most of the Latino vote, frankly, most of the minority vote.  He will get the union vote, the liberal vote.  That's good for IMHO 40%. 

The key are the Independents.

As Doug pointed out, the message has to be clear and blame clearly placed.  But, a clear alternative needs to be offered and articulated.  Not just repeating the mantra "lower taxes".  The majority of voters (remember the majority don't pay a lot of taxes) don't care about lower taxes. And the concept that lowering taxes will increase jobs is a bit esoteric. 

IMHO if the Republicans run somebody ideologically pure, you will turn off many Independents.  And the Republicans will lose. 

That's why I like Huntsman.  I know he's too middle of the road for many conservatives, but he can win.  And I trust him.  That's more
than I can say for Romney - there is something fake about him.  I like Pawlenty, but if he doesn't step it up soon, he will be left in the dust.
Bachmann will never beat Obama.  And Cain won't even win the party nomination.  Remember, the number one goal of Republicans should be to WIN. 
Huntsman is qualified, I think he's honest and believable, and he will appeal to a wide spectrum of voters. 

Just my 2cents. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #464 on: July 06, 2011, 11:27:17 AM »

JDN, My 2cents: half-right.  It is: who can carry BOTH - conservatives and independents.  Who can win the nomination AND win the general election, not just who can win independents and a general election.  People remember the McCain experience.  He headed into the general election needing to reach rightward for a base when he should have been reaching out to the rest.

Now we are in the beauty pageant phase - ideological beauty - and that choice at the moment from the activists is Bachmann over Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum.  On the competence and stature side it is Romney over Pawlenty and Huntsman.

Next come all the twists and turns along the way.  Huntsman and Pawlenty aren't out of it IMO yet.  They each need to establish what they seem to be missing and they need to be in a position to benefit from someone else faltering which is bound to happen.  As Dick Morris put it, these are the quarterfinals through this year and in the earliest primaries.

My thought on Huntsman at this point is that we got the wrong one.  Jon Jr. is a great guy but it was his father who really was the achiever.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #465 on: July 06, 2011, 11:57:53 AM »

Maybe you are right, and perhaps I am swayed because of the conservatism of this forum, but I figure the hardcore right will vote for a dogcatcher versus Obama.  It's
the ones in the middle that need to be convinced. 

Also, I'm not sure Romney has greater "competence" or "stature" than Pawlenty or Huntsman. He's just been running longer.  I'm also not sure that's a plus in my eyes except
that it has enabled him to raise funds and build a war chest.  I hope he does falter and make room for someone else.

As for Huntsman, he could have stayed home and clipped coupons, but he has served his state and country well.

Morris is right; this is only the quarterfinals.  However, given the rising cost of running, even the quarterfinals become important.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #466 on: July 06, 2011, 12:12:03 PM »

The right is energized, a lot of Obama voters are finding this isn't the hope and change they had imagined. Dumping oil onto the market from the SPR indicates the desperation felt in the white house.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #467 on: July 06, 2011, 02:40:54 PM »

 56 percent of Jewish Americans said they would vote to reelect Obama over a generic Republican candidate if the elections were held today...
78 percent of Jewish voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2008
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/169715-obama-losing-jewish-voters
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #468 on: July 07, 2011, 08:28:24 AM »

George Will today. The ending points to Gov. Rick Perry?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_0707alibi_obama_is_ripe_for_takedown_ready-made_slogan_is_this_the_best_we_can_do/

‘Alibi Obama’ is ripe for takedown
Ready-made slogan: ‘Is this the best we can do?
By George F. Will- Updated 10 hours ago

“If he popped up in the pinch he should of made a base hit and the reason he didn’t was so-and-so. And if he cracked one for three bases he ought to had a home run, only the ball wasn’t lively, or the wind brought it back, or he tripped on a lump o’ dirt, roundin’ first base.”

— Ring Lardner,

“Alibi Ike” (1915)

WASHINGTON — The Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee will run against Alibi Ike. Lardner, a Chicago sportswriter, created that character (“His right name was Frank X. Farrell, and I guess the X stood for ‘Excuse me.’ ”) who resembles Chicagoan Barack Obama. After blaming his predecessor for this and that, and after firing all the arrows in liberalism’s quiver — the stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc. — Obama seems poised to blame the recovery’s anemia on Republican resistance to simultaneously raising the debt ceiling and taxes.

So the Republican nominee’s campaign theme can already be written. In 1960, candidate John Kennedy’s theme was: “We can do better.” In 2012, the Republican candidate should say “Is this the best we can do?”

In the contest to determine who will wield those words, there have been three important recent developments: Michele Bachmann’s swift ascent into the top tier of candidates, Tim Pawlenty’s perch there becoming wobbly and Jon Huntsman’s mystifying approach to securing a place there.

Bachmann has been propelled by three strengths: Her natural aptitude, honed by considerable practice, has made her formidable at the presentational side of politics. She has perfect pitch for the nominating electorate’s passions. And she has substantive private- and public-sector experience, as a tax lawyer and as a legislator on, among others, the House Intelligence Committee.

But she also has a deficiency — indiscipline — that can, if not promptly corrected, vitiate her assets. Unprepared for the intense scrutiny presidential campaigns receive, she trustingly repeats things told to her (confusing Concord, Mass., with Concord, N.H., and John Wayne with the mass murderer John Wayne Gacy), and she plunges into peripheral and utterly optional subjects she has not mastered (e.g., the Founders and slavery). Her staff, which is not ready for prime time, is not serving as a filter to protect her from eager but misinformed supporters, and from herself.

Pawlenty, a more ardent than discerning admirer of John McCain, is suddenly echoing McCain’s unhistorical and nonsensical canard that skepticism about nation-building in Afghanistan and opposition to the intervention in Libya’s civil war constitute isolationism. “America,” Pawlenty says, astonishingly, “already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.” The Democratic Party supporting a Democratic president’s plunge into Libya is devoted to “withdrawal”? If only.

Occasionally there are Democratic presidential candidates who appeal to people who really do not like Democrats (e.g., former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt in 1988), and Republicans who appeal to people who think Republicans are among nature’s mistakes (e.g., Illinois Rep. John Anderson in 1980). Huntsman seems to be auditioning for this role, which is puzzling, because such people are not nominated.

Huntsman’s campaign manager, John Weaver, a former McCain man, believes the Republican Party is “nowhere near being a national governing party” — a view usually held by people called Democrats — and that the “simple reason” is: “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” Many of the cranks are called ... the Republican nominating electorate.

Announcing his candidacy near the Statue of Liberty, where Ronald Reagan began his 1980 post-convention campaign, Huntsman promised “civility” because “I don’t think you need to run down someone’s reputation” when running for president. Actually, you do.

You must say why your opponent deserves a reputation for inadequacy. So Reagan at that spot said Jimmy Carter’s “whole sorry record” was “a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.” Reagan said Carter’s “cynical” proposals had produced “human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit.” Reagan’s forthrightness was neither uncivil nor, in the electorate’s November opinion, untrue.

Who will carry the “Is This the Best We Can Do?” banner? So far, the serene front-runner, Mitt Romney, has nothing to fear from Huntsman’s politics of high-mindedness. Bachmann’s saliency with social conservatives, and the lurchings of Pawlenty’s campaign, threaten Pawlenty’s all-in wager on Iowa. And the potential fragility of Bachmann’s campaign turns attention to the last piece of the Republican puzzle — Texas’ Gov. Rick Perry, a high-octane social and economic conservative whom nobody could confuse with Alibi Ike.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #469 on: July 07, 2011, 08:42:51 AM »

These are some stats of the incumbent administration.  My approach is to go back 2 more years to when Dems truly took over Washington.  'Breakeven' growth economically in America is about 3.1%.  So-called 2% growth is actually moving the country backwards.
-------------
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577501/201107061854/Romneys-Right-It-Is-Worse-Now.htm  (excerpted)

There are 2 million fewer private-sector jobs now than when Obama was sworn in, and the unemployment rate is 1.5 percentage points higher.

• There are now more long-term unemployed than at any time since the government started keeping records.

• The U.S. dollar is more than 12% weaker.

• The number of Americans on food stamps has climbed 37%.

• The Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) is up 62%.

• And the national debt is about 40% higher than it was in January 2009.

In fact, reporters who bother to look will discover that Obama has managed to produce the worst recovery on record.

By this point in the Reagan recovery after the 1981-82 recession, for example, unemployment had been knocked down to 7.4% from a peak of 10.8%, and quarterly GDP growth averaged a screaming 7%.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #470 on: July 08, 2011, 10:58:49 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html

Without a teleprompter, with passion, this is what clarity and vision looks like and how it ties to the details of government policies.  Rubio is every candidate's VP choice.  He makes Ronald Reagan look unsure of himself and soft on freedom.  But can he hold his own in a debate with Joe Biden?

Watch this and then click the 'Play again' button.  Play it for your family and  send it to your friends.  If you are non-political - watch this video.  Do any of these things Obama and the Democrats are proposing grow jobs or fix the deficit?  The answer is no.  Someone needs to explain it and call them on it.

Rubio: "I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job.  And I'm curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don't say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they're not creating jobs and they're not creating new taxpayers, they're not solving the problem."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #471 on: July 08, 2011, 11:06:47 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html

Without a teleprompter, with passion, this is what clarity and vision looks like and how it ties to the details of government policies.  Rubio is every candidate's VP choice.  He makes Ronald Reagan look unsure of himself and soft on freedom.  But can he hold his own in a debate with Joe Biden?

Watch this and then click the 'Play again' button.  Play it for your family and  send it to your friends.  If you are non-political - watch this video.  Do any of these things Obama and the Democrats are proposing grow jobs or fix the deficit?  The answer is no.  Someone needs to explain it and call them on it.

Rubio: "I've never met a single job creator who's ever said to me I can't wait until government raises taxes again so I can go out and create a job.  And I'm curious to know if they say that in New Hampshire because they don't say that in Florida. And so my view on all this is I want to know how many jobs these tax increases the president proposes will create because if they're not creating jobs and they're not creating new taxpayers, they're not solving the problem."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/07/sen_rubio_we_dont_need_new_taxes_we_need_new_taxpayers.html

Awesome!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #472 on: July 08, 2011, 01:36:10 PM »

THAT is how to make the case for the economic side of the American Creed.   Clearly we need to keep our eye on this man.  Without knowing more than the little I currently know about him, he seems like an IDEAL VP candidate.  He will eat Biden alive, he will give Reps a shot at the Latino vote (yes, yes, I know the Cubans and the Mexicans are different voting blocks but this guy will know how to handle the immigration issue and neutralize it with the Mex vote and bring them home with cultural conservative issues). 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #473 on: July 08, 2011, 03:55:37 PM »

**More "community organizer" levels of stupid. If he's so concerned about criminals with access to guns, maybe he should stop Holder's DOJ from shipping them to Mexican drug cartels. Then again, his moves to restrict 2nd Amendment freedoms result in more guns and ammo being sold, so that's the one economic stimulus he actually can make happen.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm

Anti-gun groups have been disappointed to see no action so far from President Barack Obama, who supported tough gun control measures earlier in his career but fell largely silent upon becoming president. Some activists were using the opportunity of the six-month anniversary of the Giffords shooting on Friday to speak up.

Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues like banning assault weapons but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #474 on: July 08, 2011, 05:26:41 PM »

That belongs in the Gun thread.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #475 on: July 08, 2011, 05:53:23 PM »

That belongs in the Gun thread.

I disagree. Obama is desperately flailing and promising gun control to woo his disaffected base, in doing so, creating a very effective wedge issue to shear off gun owning dems and swing voters. It's much dumber than tapping the strategic oil reserves.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #476 on: July 08, 2011, 05:56:43 PM »

A nice bit from Candidate-bot 2000's campaign:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgqP6vOVY58&feature=player_embedded
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #477 on: July 12, 2011, 02:32:39 PM »

And who said ALL of Hollywood supports the Democrats?    smiley

http://www.zimbio.com/Famous+Republicans/articles
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4171


« Reply #478 on: July 12, 2011, 04:43:38 PM »

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10008523-5.html?tag=page
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #479 on: July 12, 2011, 05:25:25 PM »

Even people who voted for him are feeling that way now.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #480 on: July 13, 2011, 10:43:02 AM »

Newt appears to be toast for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean the man is lacking is some pretty sharp insights.

One of the points he made in the first debarte, was that this campaign needs to be about establishing a change in who is in power, not just winning the presidency.  It needs to be a campaign about ideas and a platform, not a popularity contest between two candidates.

Newt tookover the Congress for the first time in many decades ! with the "Contract with America".  When the Reps won, they had the power to change things e.g. Welfare Reform- this was and remains a big deal- cutting capital gains and much more.   What is the Rep CWA now?  They howl about deficits instead of spending (enabling tax increases to be part of the coversatiaon) and except for Ryan, are too chickenexcrement to name the elephant in the room.  ENTITLEMENTS WILL HAVE TO GET OFF OF BASELINE BUDGETING AND CONVERT TO VOUCHERS WITH A NUMBER= THIS AND NO MORE.

The unique uni-polar world of American Supremacy certain did not have to go the way that it has, but multi-polar is inevitable and the question is America's strategy in that.   Where is the Rep vision here?  Do we want to run on going further into Afpakia? Hitting Iran?  I'd be  game for a lot of things that would put me well outside the normal bell curve, but given the level of competence displayed by Bush-Rumbo and Bowing Baraq and the obvious incoherence of our stategy in Afpakia and the lack of anyone articulating anything plausible about Iran, I can't say as I blame the American people for declining to fk around another 10 years in Afpakia and not really caring that Baraq deliberately undercut his campaing promise to win the right and essential war of self defense in Afpakia by declaring we would be leaving it up to the Afghanis in 18 months.

Foreign affairs has been a Rep political strength for a long time.  We have a president apparently doing his best to accelerate our decline in the world and yet Rep candidates have no counter vision.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #481 on: July 13, 2011, 10:50:40 AM »

"Foreign affairs has been a Rep political strength for a long time.  We have a president apparently doing his best to accelerate our decline in the world and yet Rep candidates have no counter vision."

Two words: John Bolton


Having said that, the problem here is the public has been dumbed down to the point that there is a common belief that foreign policy isn't really important and I'm sure polling has told the repub hopefuls that this isn't a major/winning issue.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #482 on: July 13, 2011, 11:52:41 AM »

I think people know foreign policy is important, they just don't know what to do about any of it.  We have a severe case of war fatigue, but also a sense that there isn't a lot we can do about a lot of these things.  For Libya, like Egypt, people don't know if the new guys are better than the old guys and are totally burned out trying to figure it out.  Is Iraq on course or will it turn backward in a minute? As a hawk I am thinking: very strong force used less often.  We proved we could go across the world and take down these two regimes, maybe three.  But we also proved we don't have much of a stomach for it, and showed that weakness.  Our central foreign policy strength long term will come from righting the economy first, without neglecting our forces, intelligence, capabilities and readiness.  What happened to John Bolton anyway?

Newt has foreign policy proposals: http://bibireport.blogspot.com/2011/06/newt-gingrich-outlines-9-policy.html, and economic ones: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-usa-campaign-gingrich-idUSTRE74C3UV20110513  We need the best of his ideas no matter who is the nominee.   Baseline budgeting and dynamic scoring are two things that never got done.  The bureaucracy prevailed over the reformers.  Newt is the type who could have designed a trap like the McConnell plan for Obama, now he is first to trash it.  He lived through one of these poitical shutdowns.  What was his win-win solution.  The standoff was not solvable without also allowing Obama and Senate Dems to save face.

Pawlenty is another taking the move to Commander in Chief seriously.  He made many trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, I assume he has good advisers and has issued a serious and hawkish policy plan.  Greeted with a yawn here and elsewhere.  My reaction was perhaps too hawkish, compensating for what he is lacks, but all but Bolton lack that experience, including Huntsman and including Obama.  What is Obama's plan on Syria? Yemen? Golf this weekend? He can answer one of these.  (Romney has weekly foreign policy staff meetings and doesn't attend them.) Pawlenty and Newt are not very far apart on policies and plans. 

People aren't looking for a war President in July 2011; maybe they will be in Nov 2012 or halfway through the first or second term.  If Pawlenty, Romney, Bachmann or whoever loses because he or she appeared too hawkish, too war-eager... or too unready, then the economy and the foreign policy stays with the declinists.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #483 on: July 13, 2011, 12:00:56 PM »

I think Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China (and fluent in Chinese), China being perhaps the key player in this century, counts as foreign policy experience, perhaps better than anyone other than Bolton who is a non entity in this race.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #484 on: July 13, 2011, 12:11:58 PM »

I think Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China (and fluent in Chinese), China being perhaps the key player in this century, counts as foreign policy experience, perhaps better than anyone other than Bolton who is a non entity in this race.

Fluency in Mandarin is no small feat, and Huntsman's experience in China is good, but much like Romney, who is he really? What are his core beliefs? What would he be like in the oval office?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #485 on: July 13, 2011, 12:43:10 PM »

Exactly.  Core beliefs?  The Tea Party goes too far. tongue  As best as I can tell Huntsman is the candidate of the Bush wing of the Republican Party.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #486 on: July 13, 2011, 02:08:47 PM »

Who is Huntsman?  I acknowledge that remains to be seen.  I posted in response to Doug's post; my only point was that Huntsman has foreign policy experience more so
than anyone other than Bolton who as a candidate, really isn't even an issue.

As for what he would be like in Office, well he was a very successful governor in Utah.  Overall, he had a great track record. The man is qualified.

And yes, I think the Tea Party goes too far.  If the Republicans run solely on the Tea Party Platform and continue to require all these ridiculous "pledges" I predict they will lose.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #487 on: July 13, 2011, 08:55:15 PM »

JDN, I disagree with you on Bolton, I think he really was part of the foreign policy team, only for a short time, and had foreign policy expertise before being ambassador to the UN.  Like you say, it doesn't matter at this moment because he isn't a candidate.  I suspect he might play a role in the next administration and then his views and experience may come back into the light.

Huntsman's experience in foreign policy and his views for the most part are a question mark.  I don't have enough information to say this yet, but it hasn't been refuted anywhere... Huntsman worked for the President, he was picked to be our ambassador to perhaps the most crucial other country in the world, the most populous nation, the world's second largest economy, the country with the largest army, the country that holds the most of our debt, the country that threatens our ally Taiwan, etc... In all that, I don't believe he has ever had a one on one discussion about China policy with the President.  And I doubt he was sent top secret info or strategic memos into an embassy inside a totalitarian regime.  Something he wrote to Obama made me think that: 'I'm sorry we didn't have time to talk about China...' so I looked up everything I could find to follow up on it.  There was a state dinner and certainly they stood and sat close and both smiled and shook a lot of communist hands.  It is more a slam on Obama who has no interest in these matters, but it appears to me that Huntsman was off, for the most part, doing PR on his own in China, and largely was kept out of the foreign policy loop IMO.  (I would be happy to be corrected with facts on that.)

Huntsman speaks Mandarin.  That is good, but I don't value it as highly as JDN does.  Sec. Rice was fluent in Russian, but Putin was Putin during her time of service.  I studied... Nihongo Wakarimasu ka? but never directly used it in my own international business dealings.  Indirectly, yes.  Huntsman lived in Taiwan from 1987 to 1988 (less than one year? where English is more widely known than in PRC).  Not questioning his skills but if his accent/dialect in Chinese is not American, then it is Taiwanese.  In a crisis with the PRC in Beijing, wouldn't that be like having an emergency meeting with General Grant during the Civil war and he discovers you have a Montgomery, Alabama accent.  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013195905AAHQx2z

Huntsman's foreign experience is more on the side of trade, also important, rather than geopolitical and military strategy.  Our strategy with China during his time on trade and everything else was status quo as far as I know.  A little jawboning by other over the fixed exchange rate but no other changes.  Huntsman has a nice background for a starting point to run for President.  My point is that he, like everyone else including Obama 2008,  comes into the campaign and the job having done nothing remotely similar to being Commander in Chief.  He may become a great one, but we don't know that.  Maybe if Petraeus was running, I would give out more credit.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 09:09:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #488 on: July 14, 2011, 12:08:53 AM »

Doug, yes perhaps Bolton was and/or will be part of the foreign policy team, he is qualified although I don't necessarily agree with his viewpoint, but my point was that he is not and never will be a viable candidate therefore comparing him to the candidates is irrelevant.

As for Huntsman, I think you are giving him less credit than he deserves for his deep knowledge of China and Asian affairs.  I have many Chinese friends from Taiwan who travel, do business, and communicate with Mainland China.  Mandarin seems to be the common bond.  No one seems to care about accents.  And from what everyone says, he is fluent.  But language isn't my point; he knows the players in China. In my opinion, he probably has the best record/experience in foreign affairs among those running therefore it's hard to understand your question mark.

As for experience being Commander in Chief, well, most of our Presidents, our great ones, with the exception of Washington, were never military generals.  That in my opinion is how it should be; I don't want the military running our country.

As for Huntsman having a "nice background for a starting point to run for President", he did an outstanding job of running the State of Utah.  I think if you check his record you will be impressed. In my opinion, he definitely is "qualified".

I do agree he needs to define more clearly his "core beliefs".  Hopefully, it's not just blindly following the Tea Party Platform.  But just nice platitudes don't cut it either.

Regarding your question, Hai, watashi mo nihongo ga wakarimasu.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6040


« Reply #489 on: July 14, 2011, 11:42:49 AM »

My question mark would be that I don't know his policies toward China much less Russia or influencing change in the Middle East.  I believe he snubbed the Chinese leadership a bit on his exit which endears him more to me than to them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/jon-huntsman-predicts-major-problems-for-china_n_880402.html

Of course we don't want military rule.  A Petraeus type would have to separate himself from that, and he isn't running.  A better example of foreign policy experience would be a former Sec of State or Sec of Defense, who also had governor level or comparable public executive experience and significant business experience.  No one has all that.  You make a good point that Huntsman has the best mix of that in his background, I'm just saying he wasn't setting or even seriously advising an administration on US foreign policy as far as we know. 

Huntsman faces other challenges in getting elected.  http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm  You call him centrist but his mix of views on different issues do not match up well IMO with enough other centrists to make up for his positions on important issues that will offend both the right and the left.  More maverick than moderate.

With 3 and 3/4 years incumbency in Nov 2012, it is Obama who will have the experience.  What we will be arguing is the quality of that experience and what we project forward for them.

Thanks JDN for the answer to my question, I thought so!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #490 on: July 14, 2011, 03:20:54 PM »

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/07/14/gops-big-debt-ceiling-card-obamas-birthday-bash/

Party like it's 2013!
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #491 on: July 15, 2011, 09:49:27 AM »

huh

It's a fundraiser.  Raise money now, be elected for 4 more years.  Don't count Obama out just yet.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #492 on: July 15, 2011, 09:54:04 AM »

What is with these wacky "pledges" candidates are being required/asked to take? 

I respect the fact that Romney and Pawlenty won't sign.

"Earlier, Romney also declined to sign, saying that the pledge contained “references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.” He deserves credit for the strength of his denunciation, but his refusal was predictable. Though he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, this time he’s positioning himself as the sane, electable centrist. Last month he refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s far-reaching anti-abortion pledge, so it would have been odd if he’d put his name on the FAMiLY Leader’s even more radical document. After all, the 14-point pledge is about far more than fighting gay rights and abortion. It also commits signatories to making divorce more difficult, to rejecting “Sharia Islam” (a theologically nonsensical term), and to protecting women and children from being “lured into promiscuity,” among other provisions. Initially, the pledge suggested that black families were in some ways more stable under slavery than they are today, though the FAMiLY Leader removed that language after a national uproar.

Given the pledge’s wackiness, Pawlenty’s refusal to sign it speaks quite well of his character. But religious conservatives in Iowa are unlikely to see it that way. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/13/tim-pawlenty-will-his-refusal-to-sign-the-anti-porn-pledge-doom-him-in-iowa.html

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #493 on: July 15, 2011, 10:27:56 AM »

huh

It's a fundraiser.  Raise money now, be elected for 4 more years.  Don't count Obama out just yet.

Gee, I hope none of those eeeeevil rich people are invited, with their private jets buzzing around ruining the economy.....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12086


« Reply #494 on: July 15, 2011, 10:40:20 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576446332084493902.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Obama Downgrade
The real reason the U.S. could lose its AAA rating..

So the credit-rating agencies that helped to create the financial crisis that led to a deep recession are now warning that the U.S. could lose the AAA rating it has had since 1917. As painfully ironic as this is, there's no benefit in shooting the messengers. The real culprit is the U.S. political class, especially the President who has presided over this historic collapse of fiscal credibility.

Moody's and the boys are citing the risk of a default on August 2 as the proximate reason for their warning. But Americans should understand that the debt ceiling is merely the trigger. The gun is the spending boom of the last three years and the prospect that Washington lacks the political will to reduce it in the years to come.

On spending, it is important to recall how extraordinary the blowout of the last three years has been. We've seen nothing like it since World War II. Nothing close. The nearby chart tracks federal outlays as a share of GDP since 1960. The early peaks coincide with the rise of the Great Society, the recession of 1974-75, and then a high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 and the Reagan defense buildup.

From there, spending declines, most rapidly during the 1990s as defense outlays fell to 3% of GDP in 2000 from its Reagan peak of 6.2% in 1986. The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008.

Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi's Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. (Even in 1946, with millions still in the military, spending was only 24.8% of GDP. In 1947 it fell to 14.8%.) Though the recession ended in June 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year it is heading back toward 25%.

This is the main reason that federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP has climbed from 40.3% in 2008, to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to keep rising in the future. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think U.S. debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP.

...
Congress is responsible for the way so much of this spending was wasted, resulting in little job creation and the slowest economic recovery since the 1930s. But in the U.S. political system, Presidents are supposed to be the fiscal adults. When they abdicate, the teenagers invite over their special interest friends and blow the inheritance.

The President is now claiming to have found fiscal virtue, but notice how hard he has fought House Republicans as they've sought to abate the spending boom. First he used the threat of a government shutdown to whittle the fiscal 2011 spending cuts down to very little. Then he invited Paul Ryan to sit in the front row for a speech while he called his House budget un-American.

Now Mr. Obama is using the debt-ceiling debate as a battering ram not to control spending but to command a tax increase. We're told the White House list of immediate budget savings, the ones that matter most because they are enforceable by the current Congress, are negligible. His offer for immediate domestic nondefense discretionary cuts: $2 billion.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #495 on: July 15, 2011, 11:19:35 AM »

Good piece, but , , , Although of course this has implications for the Presdential race, but then most things do.  So to prevent this thread from becoming an incoherent mishmash, please post that in the Budget thread.  Thank you.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #496 on: July 17, 2011, 06:32:11 AM »

This could go in the Health Care thread, but given its political implications for the Romney campaign I put it here:

WSJ

SALT LAKE CITY — Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top supporter and adviser of Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney, strenuously backed the core piece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law and urged the states to move forward together in adopting health insurance exchanges.


Reuters
U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney greets voters after at a town hall meeting campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, Friday.Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors at the National Governors Association,  the former Republican governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration, called the exchanges where individuals and small businesses can purchase health plans “a very practical solution to a problem that needs to be solved.” He warned governors who are reluctant to move forward with their state-level exchanges that their intransigence will only empower federal regulators.

And he said the health care law that passed is a compromise that gives the states the flexibility they need.

“This is a profoundly important time for the states,” said Mr. Leavitt. “States need to lead.”

The comments came at a time when every major Republican presidential candidate has pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the president’s health care law. For former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, the issue is extra sensitive: the health care plan he secured for Massachusetts included an exchange almost identical to the federal law. He has tried to tightrope through the issue, blasting the federal law as he defends his own.

The federal law gives the states until January 2014 to set up their own exchanges, with federal oversight. If they fail to do so, their citizens will get access to a federal exchange.

But some Republican governors have been reluctant. They oppose the federal law and say they hope it will be repealed by a Republican president in 2013.

Mr. Leavitt urged them to get moving anyway. If all 50 states move forward, they will compel the federal Department of Health and Human Services to give them the flexibility to tailor their exchanges to their state needs. If only 20 move forward, the other 30 will “give license” to HHS to be inflexible in designing regulations governing the exchanges.

He urged the governors not defend their “partisan flags” over the interests of their states.

Republican governors pushed back hard. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska called the law a huge, unfunded mandate.

“There’s no way to get people to take charge of the health care issue if they think the federal government is going to take charge of them, if they think the states are going to take care of them,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.

Cindy Gillespie, a Washington lobbyist who helped Mr. Romney design the Massachusetts plan, also raised a red flag.

“Between the exchanges and Medicaid expansion (in the law), there will be a complete upheaval of the insurance market in every state,” she warned.

But in an interview with Washington Wire, Mr. Leavitt said the problem of access to health insurance for individuals and small businesses will not disappear if a Republican president wins repeal.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4171


« Reply #497 on: July 18, 2011, 09:59:29 AM »

Herman Cain was on Stossel over the weekend and it was noted he is a "survivor" of stage 4 colon cancer.
Unfortunately this is not a curable disease.  I am afraid this rules him out as a Presidential candidate in my mind:

http://www.your-cancer-prevention-guide.com/colon-cancer-stage-4.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31566


« Reply #498 on: July 18, 2011, 10:28:12 AM »

Well, for me he was already ruled out due to shocking levels of ignorance and lack of thought on foreign affairs.

Separately, I saw a report that he said something to the effect that communities should be able to prevent mosques?  Were he being taken more seriously as a candidate, this might get some more play.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #499 on: July 18, 2011, 10:40:01 AM »

You implied that communities should be able to prevent mosques.  May I presume that you also think communities should be able to prevent churches or synagogues from being buit? 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 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!