Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 05:28:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83020 Posts in 2257 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 135514 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #750 on: September 23, 2011, 05:20:16 PM »

Drudge:

Christie running? shocked

He was in my town recently doing a town hall mtg.

I could have stopped and gone in while driving by 2 minutes from my house.  cry

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #751 on: September 23, 2011, 06:33:33 PM »

Woof Guro Craftydog,
 I'm with you, the field is wide open and too many people have already voted against Mitt in prior elections for him to take the nomination this time or anytime. He's where he's at because of the proping up done by Party leadership, he shouldn't even be in the race.
                      P.C.
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #752 on: September 23, 2011, 09:30:57 PM »

Of course I like Christie for his plain speaking but IMHO it would be quite silly for him to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. 

Santorum has shown the substance he showed at the end of his time in the Senate but hasn't a prayer.  Huntsman would make a responsible Democratic candidate.  Paul has become MUCH more polished and his articulateness on economic and constitutional issues hleps stiffen the spine of the others and makes hardcore American Creed positions more palatable to the masses.  Bachman?  Says many things I like, but too many weaknesses (No executive experience, innoculations causing retardation brain fart, too MILF to be taken seriously as a president, etc).   Newt?  I confess to hoping lightning will strike and he will catch fire.  Cain is doing better and better, his 9-9-9 plan seems both sound and appealing to voters to me, but NO depth on foreign affairs.

The more I think about it, the more I think Perry hurt himself last night.   At the moment Romney is doing a fairly good job of pivoting right until he gets the nomination.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #753 on: September 24, 2011, 10:49:31 AM »



By MERRILL MATTHEWS Dallas

To highlight the problems facing Social Security, Texas Gov. and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry is pointing to three Texas counties that decades ago opted out of Social Security by creating personal retirement accounts. Now, 30 years on, county workers in those three jurisdictions retire with more money and have better death and disability supplemental benefits. And those three counties—unlike almost all others in the United States—face no long-term unfunded pension liabilities.

Since 1981 and 1982, workers in Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria Counties have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. The so-called Alternate Plan of these three counties doesn't follow the traditional defined-benefit or defined-contribution model. Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which originated the plan in 1980 and has managed it since its adoption. I call it a "banking model."

As with Social Security, employees contribute 6.2% of their income, with the county matching the contribution (or, as in Galveston, providing a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done—that's why there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press
 
Presidential candidates Rick Perry and Mitt Romney spar Thursday night.
.The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won't go below a base level and goes higher when the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75% and 5.75% every year, with the average around 5%. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, of 6.5%-7%. When the market goes up, employees make more—and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

But not all money goes into employees' retirement accounts. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1980, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn't just a retirement fund: It's also social insurance that provides a death benefit ($255), survivors' insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy that pays four times the employee's salary tax-free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That's nearly 850 times Social Security's death benefit.

If a worker participating in Social Security dies before retirement, he loses his contribution (though part of that money might go to surviving children or a spouse who didn't work). But a worker in the Alternate Plan owns his account, so the entire account belongs to his estate. There is also a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury, rather than waiting six months plus other restrictions, as under Social Security.

Those who retire under the Texas counties' Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security. According to First Financial's calculations, based on 40 years of contributions:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

The Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would under Social Security. As Galveston County Judge Mark Henry says, "The plan works great. Anyone who spends a few minutes understanding the plan becomes a huge proponent." Judge Henry says that out of 1,350 county employees, only five have chosen not to participate.

The Alternate Plan could be adopted today by the six million public employees in the U.S.—roughly 25% of the total—who are part of state and local government retirement plans that are outside of Social Security (and are facing serious unfunded liability problems). Unfortunately this option is available only to those six million public employees, since in 1983 Congress barred all others from leaving Social Security.

If Congress overrides this provision, however, the Alternate Plan could be a model for reforming Social Security nationally. After all, it provides all the social-insurance benefits of Social Security while avoiding the unfunded liabilities that are crippling the program and the economy.

If the presidential candidates, including President Obama, stop bickering about who wants to "save" or "destroy" Social Security and begin debating reform constructively, examining the Alternate Plan would be a good place to start.

Mr. Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.

Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #754 on: September 24, 2011, 03:28:40 PM »

"WASHINGTON — A gay soldier’s question about the end of the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy elicited boos from the audience at Thursday’s Republican candidates debate, and a promise from Rick Santorum to reinstate the policy if elected.

In a video submission, Stephen Hill tells the Republican presidential candidates he "had to lie about who he was" when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because of his sexual orientation, and his fear that he would "lose my job."

"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?" Hill asked.

Loud jeers were heard immediately from the crowd at the debate site in Orlando, Fla., marking the third straight debate when the audience’s reaction overshadowed the candidate’s.

That reaction was not immediately acknowledged by the Fox News Channel moderators, as NBC’s Brian Williams did in the Reagan Library debate when the crowd applauded the number of executions in Texas under Rick Perry.

In last week’s CNN "tea party" debate, some in the audience supported the notion that a sick person should be allowed to die if he or she had no health care.

Answering Hill, Santorum said that "sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," and said the repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, which took effect this week, was injecting "social policy into the military."

"What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now, and that’s tragic," Santorum said.

Asked how he would answer soldiers like Hill, Santorum said he would not "throw them out."

"But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past, which is, that sex is not an issue," he said. "Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual."" - http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110923at_gop_debate_crowd_boos_gay_soldiers_dont_ask_dont_tell_question/

__________________________________________________________________

I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #755 on: September 24, 2011, 03:35:31 PM »

I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.

Yes, how dare anyone oppose the gay agenda. It's like a felony level thoughtcrime, right?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #756 on: September 24, 2011, 04:02:43 PM »

We interrupt this vignette for a reality check.   One of the points about DADT was that NO ONE "had to lie about who he was".  cheesy 

Personally it makes perfect sense to me to acknowledge that healthy young humans have strong sexual drives.  As I understand it the logic is that given that most people (95-98% IMHO) are heterosexual, having sexually homogenous units keeps sexual shenanigans and the attendant disruptions to military discipline out of play.  This makes perfect sense to me.

OTOH if the environment is a "target rich environment" of the orifice of choice, then by golly fcuking within the unit is going to happen.  We don't even allow this in the corporate world (not that I agree, but that is a separate matter), but, speaking only as a humble civilian, it makes sense to me that this has a high potential for poor morale and poor discipline with attendant consequences for unit cohesion and performance.

Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #757 on: September 24, 2011, 11:31:26 PM »

I can't believe the classless nastiness of the people at that debate. I also can't believe that none of the candidates had anything to say about it. What a bunch of weak willed soulless politicians.

Yes, how dare anyone oppose the gay agenda. It's like a felony level thoughtcrime, right?

Nope. I wasn't talking about thought crimes. I was complaining about the nasty people that attended the debate.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 02:24:30 AM by Cranewings » Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 776


« Reply #758 on: September 25, 2011, 03:54:48 AM »

Woof,
 Herman Cain got a bump in the Florida straw poll; glad to see it. There's a learning curve for any new area you take on and I'm hoping that Cain will close the gap as he becomes schooled in foreign affairs and you can bet his team is working on it with him.
                                                 P.C.
Logged

bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #759 on: September 25, 2011, 07:46:38 AM »

I will confess that I don't understand what you mean here, Guro.  Women deploy with men in great quantities.  If you are even close to right about the percentage of hetros, then the "orifice of choice" has been available for years.  I don't think the remaining 3% should matter that much. 

We interrupt this vignette for a reality check.   One of the points about DADT was that NO ONE "had to lie about who he was".  cheesy 

Personally it makes perfect sense to me to acknowledge that healthy young humans have strong sexual drives.  As I understand it the logic is that given that most people (95-98% IMHO) are heterosexual, having sexually homogenous units keeps sexual shenanigans and the attendant disruptions to military discipline out of play.  This makes perfect sense to me.

OTOH if the environment is a "target rich environment" of the orifice of choice, then by golly fcuking within the unit is going to happen.  We don't even allow this in the corporate world (not that I agree, but that is a separate matter), but, speaking only as a humble civilian, it makes sense to me that this has a high potential for poor morale and poor discipline with attendant consequences for unit cohesion and performance.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #760 on: September 25, 2011, 08:12:21 AM »

Of course there's f'g in the Army-- I know that  cheesy  

I might add that there have been a lot of accusations of rape, both reported and unreported, about which the coverage and non-coverage appears to be quite agenda driven.  There also are cases where women get pregnant to get out of war zone missions and then abort upon getting reassigned.  On one ship in the Gulf War over 20% of the women got pregnant.  Working from memory in Kosovo in the 90s some 5% of the women got pregnant, with a lot of them getting abortions upon return to the US.   I am sorry I cannot offer citations, I can only offer my track record as a poster.

Anyway, what I was trying to communicate in my previous post is that there hasn't been is the question presented within the same unit, within the same barracks, within the same showers, within the same unit going out on patrol.

Ending DADT was a politically imposed thing in an area which should have been left to our armed forces to determine for themselves.

Moving along, here's this from Pravda on the Hudson's Maureen Dowd.   I can picture our community organizer in chief making the same points about exactly what it was that Romney did in the private sector.:
============
IN a flash, Rick Perry has gone from Republican front-runner to cycling domestique, riding in front of the pack and taking all the wind — or in this case, hot air — to allow the team leader to pedal in the slipstream.

 
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Go to Columnist Page »
.Related
Times Topics: Rick Perry | Mitt Romney
Related in Opinion
Gail Collins: Perry’s Bad Night (September 24, 2011)
.Editorial: State of the Republican Field (September 24, 2011) Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (67) »
In the debate on Thursday night in Florida, as Perry grew more Pinteresque, lapsing into long, paralyzed pauses, Mitt Romney grew less statuesque, breaking his marble mold and showing a new sarcastic streak.

Romney unveiled his own version of Reagan’s “There you go again,” repeatedly blowing off Perry with a smile and a “Nice try.”

Slapping Perry for backtracking from his suggestion in his book “Fed Up!” that Social Security should be left up to states, Romney snidely noted, “There’s a Rick Perry out there that’s saying” that, “so you’d better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.”

Romney, a champion flip-flopper, has painted Perry as a floppier flipper.

In the high school version of the 2008 Republican primary contest, Romney was regarded by John McCain and other contenders as the loathed hall monitor, prissy and hypocritical. It’s not that he has gotten so much more popular or less plastic, although he has improved his performance. It’s just that his rivals keep getting more implausible.

The only reason Perry got in the race in the first place was that Republicans yearned for an alternative to Romney. (This weekend, they were drunk-texting Chris Christie.) But for now, Perry is proving to be Romney’s best asset.

Asked the 3 a.m. question by a moderator, Bret Baier of Fox News, what would a President Perry do if he got a call saying Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons to the Taliban, the Texas governor offered a Palinesque meditation on “the Pakistani country.”

“Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region,” he said. “And that’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country — so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.” But can he see the Taj Mahal from his house?

Romney used his new sarcasm on President Obama, too, claiming the Democrat takes his inspiration from the “socialist democrats” in Europe. “Guess what?” Romney said. “Europe isn’t working in Europe. It’s not going to work here.”

He also poked the president on jobs: “I happen to believe that to create jobs it helps to have had a job, and I have.”

Those are strong words from a candidate whose liability is that he made a living eliminating jobs.

In any other economy, working at Bain would be a bane to Romney’s presidential craving because it’s hard to trust a flip-flopper who’s a company flipper. Romney himself has used the phrase “creative destruction” to describe what his former private equity firm, Bain Capital, excelled at: buying companies, restructuring and downsizing, and selling them for a profit.

As Howard Anderson of M.I.T. told The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty: “Private equity is a little like sex. When it’s good, it’s very, very good. When it’s bad, it’s still pretty good.”

But in this economy, a predatory business plan from a man worth $200 million may not sound so bad. Especially now that the former community organizer is being limned as a president who was too naïve and hesitant in handling the cascading crises of his first two years.

In “Pretty Woman,” Richard Gere played a financial shark who downsized companies; he wore expensive suits, went to polo matches and drove an expensive sports car. (No dog or hooker tied to the roof.) Romney, by contrast, is trying to downplay his downsizing fortune and his upgrading of his snazzy La Jolla beach house.

He makes sure everyone knows about his Carl’s Jr. jalapeño chicken sandwiches and his Jet Blue middle seats. And he pushes the regular-guy image in tweets: “Great deep-dish at @ginoseast”; “Just got a Trim at Tommy’s in Atlanta”; “Thanks @subwayfreshbuzz for breakfast. Better than the usual campaign diet of morning donuts”; “Thanks to the great @SouthwestAir crew for an easy flight.” On Friday, his adviser Ron Kaufman tweeted a picture of the candidate in an airport terminal with his laptop on his lap, presumably tweeting more encomia to fast-food emporia.

Just as George Bush the elder, a Yalie, used to mock Michael Dukakis as part of the “Harvard boutique,” Willard Mitt Romney, a Harvard alum, in a speech in Florida on Thursday, mocked Obama as an elitist who hung out in the “Harvard faculty lounge.”

For now, Romney is effectively using Perry as a whipping boy on issues that matter to conservatives, like illegal immigration. And when Perry attacks Romney as “Obama lite,” he could be doing Mitt a favor by reminding independents and Democrats that the Stormin’ Mormon is a pseudo-conservative whom they can abide.

Authenticity can be overrated, especially in a rabid conservative.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 08:15:07 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #761 on: September 25, 2011, 10:13:51 AM »

Does anyone here have the impression that at least some females who volunteer are looking for guys?

Or if lesbian just the opposite?

OTOH, I don't know any male volunteers who do so to find girls.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #762 on: September 26, 2011, 10:13:12 AM »

The only question I would ask my most trusted generals on don't ask, don't tell and gays in the military is, will this help you win wars?  We have never strived for fairness in the military for people with flat feet or color blindness.  To think this is about fairness or civil rights is to forget or ignore the mission.

The question asked was(quoted from this thread): "do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made..."

 - I did not know that we were winning wars faster or beating tougher opponents now than before the gay fairness agenda hit the military. It does seem to me that if I were a commander I might deploy people more intelligently if I am allowed to know this most basic information about each soldier along with every thing else I can know  before I make the assignments and choose the combat teams.
-----
Referring to the Maureen Dowd piece, if the general election debates come down to knowledge and understanding of the inner workings creative destruction and entrepreneurial, dynamic capitalism, Romney will hold his own with the community organizer.  The sooner that dead weight is lifted from an enterprise the better it will perform and the sooner that person will move on to were they really are most valuable.  That is a strength not a weakness of economic freedom and capitalism.  The Governor will handle answering for his private sector experience better than he handles his as chief executive of the most liberal state.
-----
Romney regarding the Texas economy under Perry, 'he was dealt four aces'?  If Obama was dealt four aces he would not recognize real economic growth opportunities if they hit him over the head; he would discard at least 3 of them and hope to get more fairness, equality and diversity in his hand.
-----
I was out of contact during this debate and Florida straw poll, but the reaction of others already posted here and elsewhere seems to be pretty much in agreement.  If Rick Perry is unable to articulate his thoughts or his governance, that is good to know right now. We've had that in a recent President and it didn't work.   If Hermann Cain is improving and has quite a gift for oratory outside of the debates and interviews, then he can serve the cause in that role, but probably not as President.  I sympathize with the anyone but Romney sentiment but will predict at this juncture that it is going to be Romney, so the question (from my point of view)  is how well can these contests pull him right and lock him into an agenda acceptable to me and an agenda that actually will be bold enough to rescue the Republic.  That question remains unanswered.  We don't know what kind of President he will be but my thought now is that it is time to work harder through the House and Senate incumbents and candidates to influence the agenda going forward.  This nomination process is likely over in an instant this winter and the addition of new and less vetted candidates won't make things easier or better.
-----
Michael Barone gives good commentary here though I disagree with his conclusion that there still might be a white horse (color neutral horse) that will ride in and save the conservative side of this election.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/26/still_looking_for_a_candidate_to_replace_obama_111468.html

Still Looking for a Candidate to Replace Obama
By Michael Barone

The Republicans' presidential debate Thursday night sponsored by Fox News and Google gave primary voters and caucus-goers at least one good reason to reject every candidate on the stage. The interesting question now is whether someone else will enter the race -- at just about the same point in the election cycle in which Bill Clinton entered the Democratic race in 1991.

The spotlight was hottest on Rick Perry, the frontrunner in national polls since he announced his candidacy in Charleston, S.C., on Aug. 13, the same day that Michele Bachmann won the straw poll in Ames, Iowa.

Perry's problem was not just that he punted on the tough question of how to respond to a terrorist takeover of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Even the smooth-talking Mitt Romney might have had trouble with that nightmare scenario. And Perry was right to cite our informal alliance with India as a source of leverage.

The problem was that Perry was couldn't respond cogently to utterly predictable questions and was unable to articulate his pre-scripted criticisms of Romney. A case can certainly be made that Romney has flip-flopped on issues. But Perry failed to make it.

Perry defended his order requiring HPV vaccinations by citing his talks with a woman with cervical cancer -- but they took place only after his order. He failed to fend off attacks on his criticisms of Social Security in his book "Fed Up!," saying he was only endorsing the longtime exemption from the program for state and local public employees.

He failed to explain why Texas, with its large legal and illegal immigrant and young populations, has a high percentage of people without health insurance.

He was eloquent in defending Texas's in-state college tuition for children of illegal aliens, but his stand is hugely unpopular with Republicans outside Texas. And he failed to point out that it helped him win a respectable 38 percent from Latino voters in the 2010 election.

Mitt Romney clearly benefited from his greater experience over the years and his superior preparation in recent weeks. But he also benefited from the fact that no one challenged him convincingly on claims that he is unlikely to be able to sustain.

He sloughed off Perry's accurate charge that he supported the Obama administration's Race to the Top education program -- a defensible position, but not a popular one for Republicans.

He repeated now what has been his standard defense of his Massachusetts health care program. But someday someone is going to nail him on his insistence that its individual mandate to buy insurance covers only 8 percent of the population. It actually applies to everyone.

He avoided Perry's claim that he deleted defenses of the program from the paperback edition of his book. He won't be able to deftly dodge that forever.

If he overtakes Perry in the polls -- a likely possibility after the Texan's stumbling performance -- he will likely become the pinata for the rest of the field, a role he figured to play before Perry entered the race.

None of the other seven candidates on the stage made a convincing case for advancing to the top tier. The closest was Rick Santorum, who was eloquent and knowledgeable on foreign policy. But his answer on gays in the military was cringe-inducing for people on all sides of the issue.

Michele Bachmann refused to back down from her statement relaying the claim of a woman who approached her saying that the HPV vaccine caused retardation in her child. Bachmann has made headway by championing the instincts of ordinary hardworking citizens over the supposed wisdom of experts. But on vaccinations the experts are right.

Pundits are fixated on designating a frontrunner, but the polls in this race -- witness Romney's rise and fall and Perry's rise -- have all the solidity of cotton candy. Bachmann's numbers peaked in July, Herman Cain's in June, Ron Paul's and Newt Gingrich's in May -- and not at high levels. Santorum's haven't peaked at all.

Could another candidate give a better performance than Perry and deliver more sustainable responses than Romney? To judge from their performances in various public and private venues the answer is yes for Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie.

Each has taken himself out of the race. Each still has time to get in. Most voters are ready to reject Barack Obama. But not necessarily for one of those on the stage Thursday night.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #763 on: September 26, 2011, 11:50:34 AM »

Cain must have had a metastatic colon cancer lesion to the liver.  I believe it may be curable if that lobe of the liver is removed and the rest is surgically removed.  I'll have to run it by my oncology colleagues.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #764 on: September 26, 2011, 03:06:30 PM »



Cain (Joe Burbank/AP)

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Not everyone needs to go to Disney World to have fun in central Florida.

After one of Herman Cain's strongest showings yet at a Republican presidential debate Thursday, and two days with conservative activists in the state, he won the "Presidency 5" straw poll in Orlando over the weekend, beating front-runner Texas Gov. Rick Perry by more than 20 points.

While straw polls are not scientific and their results can be poor indicators of whether a candidate will  win a party's nomination--the latest actual Florida poll put Cain near the bottom--they can help spark some momentum, especially for lower-tier candidates. For Cain, a 65-year-old businessman, mathematician, author and radio host from Atlanta, Georgia, his straw poll win could well be the high-water mark of his campaign. And by his own admission, the path that brought him this far wasn't an easy one. The morning before the straw poll, I met Cain for coffee in a hotel near the convention center that hosted the debate and straw poll. As we discussed the early phase of the Republican primaries, he told me that before coming to Florida, he had nearly called it quits on two occasions.

"The thing that I've learned about myself in this campaign--because I've never had this happen to me before on a single challenge--is that I've gone to the brink, ready to pull the plug, but came back, twice," Cain said. "I've only had two days where I personally felt, should I pull the plug? For different reasons. That's how frustrating a campaign can be."

When I pressed for details, he said he'd prefer to keep them to himself.

"I can't tell you what those two days are," he said.  "But think about the number of days we've been on this campaign. Two ain't that bad."

Cain is certainly no stranger to adversity, having recently overcome Stage IV colon and liver cancer.

Even though he's known as the "pizza" candidate for his years as head of Godfather's Pizza, his background is much broader than that. After he graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics and a minor in chemistry in 1968, Cain landed a job as a ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, where he was responsible for the calculations that ensured battleship rockets hit their targets.

"It's not an easy thing to do," he said.

Cain later completed a master's degree in computer science and entered the business world where he led several companies--most recently Godfather's--and chaired the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His résumé--from mathematician and rocket scientist to restaurateur and now politician--isn't exactly a typical one for a presidential candidate. But Cain said that while his presidential run may look unlikely from the outside, it's actually part of his larger career trajectory of seeking out new ways to test himself.

"I'm bored if I don't have a challenge," he said.

Cain said the run for the White House is his toughest challenge yet--and it's been anything but boring. Despite the frustrations of running a national campaign, you can tell he's enjoying it. But it doesn't take much to get him riled up.

After a few caffeine-heavy refills at our corner table, I asked him about President Obama's new effort to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Cain just about blew a blood vessel--especially when I mentioned the part where Obama says it's about "math" not "class warfare."

"Can I be blunt? That's a lie," Cain said, before the sound of his voice began to rise noticeably higher. "You're not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you're not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn't tell a lie. If it's not class warfare, it's highway robbery. He wants us to believe it's not class warfare, oh okay, it's not class warfare. Pick my pockets, because that's what he's doing!"

Cain paused, took a breath and looked at me.

"I'm not mad at you, I just get passionate about this stuff," he said. "I have to tell people because I get so worked up . . . . I'm listening to all this bullshit that he's talking about, 'fairness' and 'balanced approach' to get this economy going."

As anyone who watched the past couple of debates knows by now, Cain has his own plan that he says would steer the country out of its economic downturn. He calls it the "9-9-9 Plan," and it would replace the current tax code with three flat, nine-percent federal taxes on income, consumption and business.

"With 9-9-9 guess what? How many loopholes?" he said, tapping his fingers on the table like a drumroll. "None. Everybody gets treated the same. What a novel idea."

As the straw poll and his recent fundraising numbers suggest, Cain's message is resonating with the conservative movement's influential base of tea-party activists; for these supporters his status as a non-career politician with an extensive background in the private sector is nearly as strong a draw as his ideas and policy proposals.  But despite his recent surge in support, few expect Cain's momentum to carry him on  to victory at the Republican National Convention in 2012.

Cain insisted that the prognostications of a few pundits won't stop him from pressing on as far as his donors will carry him. At the same time, though, he said that this campaign will be his last foray into politics.

"I'm not planning to run for another public office," he said. But regardless, it's been "a hell of a challenge."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #765 on: September 26, 2011, 03:09:22 PM »


"I'm not mad at you, I just get passionate about this stuff," he said. "I have to tell people because I get so worked up . . . . I'm listening to all this bullshit that he's talking about, 'fairness' and 'balanced approach' to get this economy going."

Cain just became my favorite!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #766 on: September 26, 2011, 03:16:27 PM »

"Even though he's known as the "pizza" candidate for his years as head of Godfather's Pizza, his background is much broader than that. After he graduated from Morehouse College with a degree in mathematics and a minor in chemistry in 1968, Cain landed a job as a ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, where he was responsible for the calculations that ensured battleship rockets hit their targets.

""It's not an easy thing to do," he said.

"Cain later completed a master's degree in computer science and entered the business world where he led several companies--most recently Godfather's--and chaired the National Restaurant Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His résumé--from mathematician and rocket scientist to restaurateur and now politician"

That is a far more interesting resume than most people realize, but if he ever gets any traction that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4147


« Reply #767 on: September 26, 2011, 04:46:38 PM »

that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot

Yes MSLSD has already showing us 1960s versions of multicolored chemically polluted rivers, dumps with thousands of barrels of chemicals, people dying in India from chemical disasters, dying animals in oil spills and claiming that Republicans want to go back to *this!* 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #768 on: September 26, 2011, 06:50:25 PM »


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-ban-asthma-inhalers-over-environmental-concerns_594113.html

Obama Administration Set to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns


3:00 PM, Sep 23, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations at the EPA because they were too costly? Well, it seems that the Obama administration would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer:
 

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.
 
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.
 
The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.
 
But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.
 
The Atlantic's Megan McArdle, an asthma sufferer, noted a while back that when consumers are forced to use environmentally friendly products they are almost always worse:


Er, industry also knew how to make low-flow toilets, which is why every toilet in my recently renovated rental house clogs at least once a week.  They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice.  And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp.    They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag.  Etc.
 
Well, tough cookies asthma sufferers! You should have written bigger checks to the Democratic party while you had the chance.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #769 on: September 26, 2011, 07:33:58 PM »

Woof of ye of little thread discipline  cheesy

In a certain sense almost anything can be said to be related to the election, but that would fit much better in Bureaucracy or some other such thread.

Yip!
Thread Nazi
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #770 on: September 26, 2011, 07:40:50 PM »

Woof of ye of little thread discipline  cheesy

In a certain sense almost anything can be said to be related to the election, but that would fit much better in Bureaucracy or some other such thread.

Yip!
Thread Nazi

It was in response to this:

"That is a far more interesting resume than most people realize, but if he ever gets any traction that "abolish the EPA" thing will kill it on the spot."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #771 on: September 26, 2011, 07:43:39 PM »

As Mitt Romney would say "Nice try"  cheesy  A comment about the POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES of a statement calling for the abolition of the EPA does not "open the door" to a line of testimony about the sundry stupidities of the EPA.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #772 on: September 26, 2011, 07:59:42 PM »

Well, as Perry would say "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look*.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #773 on: September 26, 2011, 10:39:44 PM »

Well we've got Perry with the "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look" and Romney, well.....  and no one else.  I concede my guy Huntsman is not rising in the polls.

Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected.

PS And if inhalers pollute and the new ones don't, but they cost $10.00 more, well, sorry, but I can probably name 10 products off the top of my head that they have banned
because of pollution.  Good for them. 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-fda-inhalerstre78l3nl-20110922,0,7519410.story
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #774 on: September 26, 2011, 10:43:45 PM »

I saw some poll numbers on the Brett Baier Report tonight showing that Bachman has fallen below Huntsman (or was it the FL straw poll?)  OUCH!!!  cheesy
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #775 on: September 26, 2011, 10:49:31 PM »

I saw some poll numbers on the Brett Baier Report tonight showing that Bachman has fallen below Huntsman (or was it the FL straw poll?)  OUCH!!!  cheesy

I think you are wrong (I hope not), but I'll check.  If I remember reading this week, Huntsman is clearly at the bottom.   sad
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #776 on: September 26, 2011, 11:42:37 PM »

"Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected."

A random person picked out of the phone book could do a better job than Obama. The bar is now incredibly low, anyone that runs against him is a better option.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #777 on: September 26, 2011, 11:47:10 PM »


http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bumper-Sticker-West-Virginia-No-Job-Zone.jpg
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #778 on: September 26, 2011, 11:56:50 PM »

"Everyone here laughs and jokes at Obama, but if this is the best the Republicans can do, I bet Obama get's re-elected."

A random person picked out of the phone book could do a better job than Obama. The bar is now incredibly low, anyone that runs against him is a better option.

Yeah, talk is cheap.  Let's see if the Republican's win.    According to you it should be easy, a landslide Presidential election in favor of the Republicans:  We'll see...  smiley

Then again, you are the one who said, "Well, as Perry would say "Ummmmmm", mumble *blank look*."

 grin
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #779 on: September 27, 2011, 12:07:47 AM »

And Obama would say "Jews, um, Janitors", "Austrian language", "Corpse-man", "57 states", and "Intercontinental Railroad".

Does the "Intercontinental Railroad" go from North America to Europe?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #780 on: September 27, 2011, 12:16:13 AM »


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.html?dlvrit=23653

New gaffe: Obama hails America's historic building of 'the Intercontinental Railroad'


 September 23, 2011 |  5:24am


"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.
 
That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.
 
A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!
 
It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.

If you talk as much as this guy likes to talk instead of governing, if you believe you are a Real Good Talker as much as this guy does, you're gonna blow a few lines. But this many?
 
No doubt, we'll see a collection of Obama's Best Bombs on 'Saturday Night Live' this weekend, one right after the other. No doubt. Can you imagine the media coverage of such repeated historical ignorance if it had been the last Ivy League alum president who said it?
 
The Democrat had traveled to Ohio on Thursday to tout his American Jobs Act, the....

 ...$447-billion boondoggle he proposed to a joint session of Congress this month because his previous $787-billion boondoggle didn't create anywhere near as many jobs as Joe Biden had promised.
 This president is in a jam. The economy sucks. Unemployment sucks. His job approval sucks and his economic approval sucks worse. Independents have abandoned the flailing White House occupant, so are some Jews, liberals and even blacks. His Hollywood bundlers had trouble selling out the POTUS fundraisers in L.A. next week.


Obama's own Democratic Party controls the Senate and won't put their leader's jobs bill on the schedule because more wild spending like this doomed bill could also doom some Dem senators next year.
 
So here's how the ex-state senator from the Chicago machine reacts: At an operating cost of $181,000 per hour, he flies Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip for 17 minutes of remarks touting infrastructure repairs by a bridge that doesn't need them.

The real reason he's at the Brent Spence Bridge is because it links the home states of both congressional Republican leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. So Obama can cutely blame Republicans for holding up his jobs bill, even though it's Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
 
Obama turns the empty rhetoric into a pep rally for himself, leading the obedient audience to chant, "Pass this bill! Pass this bill!"
 
This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript (scroll down for full version and related stories), here's what passes for Obama leadership:
 

Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station.
 
So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads?  And let Europe build the best highways?  And have Singapore build a nicer airport?
 
Quick question: Has anyone ever heard any American express jealousy over Singapore's sweet airport?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #781 on: September 27, 2011, 12:31:20 AM »


http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-25/world/china.train.accident.outrage_1_bullet-train-wang-yongping-railway-ministry?_s=PM:WORLD

Although Chinese reporters raced to the scene, none of the major state-run newspapers even mentioned the story on their Sunday front pages. A user of Sina Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter, first broke the story and increasingly popular social media outlets then provided millions of Chinese with the fastest information and pictures as well as the most poignant and scathing commentaries.

By the time the railway ministry held its first press conference more than 24 hours after the collision, the public had seen not just reports of passengers trapped inside dark trains or images of a mangled car dangling off the bridge -- but also bulldozers crushing mangled cars that had fallen to the ground and burying the wreckage on site.
"How can we cover up an accident that the whole world already knew about?" said a defiant railway ministry spokesman Wang Yongping. "They told me they buried the car to facilitate the rescue effort -- and I believe this explanation."

Wang was terse when reporters asked him to explain the fact that a toddler girl was being pulled out of the wreckage alive 20 hours after the accident -- and long after authorities declared no more signs of life in the trains.

"That was a miracle," he said.

Blaming lightning strike-triggered equipment failure as the cause of the accident based on preliminary investigation, Wang put on a brave face on the safety of China's controversial high-speed rail.

"Chinese technologies are advanced and we are still confident about that," he said.

While some state media echoed Wang's sentiment, many netizens questioned his every statement from the death toll to the cause and called him the face of a ministry mired in allegations of corruption and ineptitude.

"This land is a hotbed for the world's most sprawling bureaucracy and most cold-blooded officials," user "chenjie" wrote on Sina Weibo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-train-wreck/2011/04/21/AFqjRWRE_story.html

China’s train wreck


Video: Is China’s high-speed rail a model for U.S. transportation? Based on his travels in China, Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane thinks not.
 
By CHARLES LANE,




For the past eight years, Liu Zhijun was one of the most influential people in China. As minister of railways, Liu ran China’s $300 billion high-speed rail project. U.S., European and Japanese contractors jostled for a piece of the business while foreign journalists gushed over China’s latest high-tech marvel.

Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for “severe violations of discipline” — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone. Safety concerns also are cropping up.

Faced with a financial and public relations disaster, China put the brakes on Liu’s program. On April 13, the government cut bullet-train speeds 30 mph to improve safety, energy efficiency and affordability. The Railway Ministry’s tangled finances are being audited. Construction plans, too, are being reviewed.

Liu’s legacy, in short, is a system that could drain China’s economic resources for years. So much for the grand project that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times likened to a “moon shot” and that President Obama held up as a model for the United States.

Rather than demonstrating the advantages of centrally planned long-term investment, as its foreign admirers sometimes suggested, China’s bullet-train experience shows what can go wrong when an unelected elite, influenced by corrupt opportunists, gives orders that all must follow — without the robust public discussion we would have in the states. (I guess they missed "We have to pass it to find what's in it" and stimulus/green jobs boondoggles of the Obama era-G M)

The fact is that China’s train wreck was eminently foreseeable. High-speed rail is a capital-intensive undertaking that requires huge borrowing upfront to finance tracks, locomotives and cars, followed by years in which ticket revenue covers debt service — if all goes well. “Any . . . shortfall in ridership or yield, can quickly create financial stress,” warns a 2010 World Bank staff report.

Such “shortfalls” are all too common. Japan’s bullet trains needed a bailout in 1987. Taiwan’s line opened in 2007 and needed a government rescue in 2009. In France, only the Paris-Lyon high-speed line is in the black.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #782 on: September 27, 2011, 03:48:04 AM »

I'll read through this entire thread tomorrow, but since the season is upon us, I'm extremely conservative, but I'm a Libertarian first, which is to say, that I believe in a strong military, minimal government, maximum freedom with maximum personal responsibility and I will not be voting for Romney nor Perry. One is a RINO and the other is soft on illegal immigration. Call me heartless.
To me, the Republicans and Democrats alike have both steered the ship for far too long and fortunately, the Republicans cannot win without the Tea Party support (not racists, we're small government), and I'd like to see the Republicans support a candidate like Paul (who gets very little media coverage in comparison to everyone else).
I will not vote for a Republican candidate simply to guarantee that Obama (whose policies I absolutely detest), doesn't get re-elected.
I'll support Paul and those principles, or nothing. The time of choosing the lesser of two eveils simply because those are the only two that have a chance of being elected has gone on long enough.
Not this time. I don't think that I'm alone in this thought. Can you say three way split? Perhaps the US will being going the way of Europe's multi-party system with all of its evils. Time will tell.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #783 on: September 27, 2011, 05:14:23 AM »

GM:  Do posts on Chinese railroads really belong in this thread?  C'mon , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #784 on: September 27, 2011, 06:44:13 AM »

Obooba's "Intercontinental railroad" speech.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #785 on: September 27, 2011, 06:48:35 AM »

DF,

Paul is a fringe candidate and will never get the nomination. He isn't strong on nat'l defense by any definition and also has very sordid connections to groups like Stormfront. Even Mittens would be preferable to Paul.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #786 on: September 27, 2011, 09:06:21 AM »

GM:  Yes Obama is president and so in a very broad sense anything he says or does affects the election, but that does not mean anything he says or does belongs on this thread.  rolleyes  C'mon now!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #787 on: September 27, 2011, 09:32:22 AM »

Trans-continental might have been the word he was looking for...
----
I am also not a Ron Paul fan but I sympathize with the sentiment that libertarians and conservatives shouldn't allow themselves at this point in the process to be rolled over by Dems in our party in disguise. Besides lacking a foreign policy Ron Paul has also failed a test of leadership in terms of drawing more people and more elected officials into the libertarian movement.  I don't like the multi-party systems, but he would not prevail there either.  We need someone who will win 51% and 270 electoral votes and advance conservative-libertarian smaller government principles.

Not my first choice, but I think Romney will be the candidate and I'm not completely sure what I think about that.  I am hoping that his Massachusetts stint was just mid-life crisis phase and that his core if he has one is more center-right. He is too much of a poll watcher but that puts the impetus back on us to keep moving the issue polls rightward and in the direction of individual liberty.  He is not going to slash federal government in any big way but If he cannot more clearly identify his own differences with the left, win those arguments and energize the right, then he will lose as did centrist McCain.  Perry did not turn out to bevery pure in his conservatism either.  Bachmann is not ready nor the right person.  Cain, like Bachmann over the summer might have his moment now and we will see if he rises to it.  He has some amazing strengths but so far has appeared not ready.  Must give credit to all of them, that this past half year was the time to step forward and give it your best shot and many did.  You can't say that for the imploding Dem field of one.

Equally important to winning the election is to govern successfully with persuasion, leadership and competence which means making bold moves and bringing the country with you.

It comes down to (IMHO) small government and large freedom vs. big government and small freedom on the domestic side.  On foreign policy there is a lot of confusion write now on all sides but we need clarity projected as to what America stands for.  And it comes down to judicial picks, don't forget.  Let's concede for a moment that Bush was a RINO for all his domestic spending and McCain too for different reasons.  The difference between having John Roberts and Sam Alito defend your constitutional rights over Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are stark.  Those 4 named may be offsetting votes on key constitutional issues but if all 4 had fallen in one direction or the other, and to say that is all the same and makes no difference is 'crazy talk'.  Certainly the left would not agree with you.
------
Thomas Sowell has a column today adding his wisdom to the mix.  I agree with him on the specific points.  What he doesn't address with Perry was the inarticulateness that just killed us with the last Republican.  Good and decent is what we want, but you have to be able to command the stage and explain your principles if as the leader you are going to draw more people and support.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/27/superman_vs_warm_body_111483.html

Superman vs. Warm Body
By Thomas Sowell

One of the problems in trying to select a leader for any large organization or institution is the tendency to start out looking for Superman, passing up many good people who fail to meet that standard, and eventually ending up settling for a warm body.

Some Republicans seem to be longing for another Ronald Reagan. Good luck on that one, unless you are prepared to wait for several generations. Moreover, even Ronald Reagan himself did not always act like Ronald Reagan.


The current outbreak of "gotcha" attacks on Texas Governor Rick Perry show one of the other pitfalls for those who are trying to pick a national leader. The three big sound-bite issues used against him during the TV "debates" have involved Social Security, immigration and a vaccine against cervical cancer.

Where these three issues have been discussed at length, whether in a few media accounts or in Governor Perry's own more extended discussions in an interview on Sean Hannity's program, his position was far more reasonable than it appeared to be in either his opponents' sound bites or even in his own abbreviated accounts during the limited time available in the TV "debate" format.

On Social Security, Governor Perry was not only right to call it a "Ponzi scheme," but was also right to point out that this did not mean welshing on the government's obligation to continue paying retirees what they had been promised.

Even those of us who still disagree with particular decisions made by Governor Perry can see some of those decisions as simply the errors of a decent man who realized that he was faced not with a theory but with a situation.

For example, the ability to save young people from cervical cancer with a stroke of a pen was a temptation that any decent and humane individual would find hard to resist, even if Governor Perry himself now admits to second thoughts about how it was done.

Many of us can agree with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's contention that it should have been done differently. But it reflects no credit on her to have tried to scare people with claims about the dangers of vaccination. Such scares have already cost the lives of children who have died on both sides of the Atlantic from diseases that vaccination would have prevented.

The biggest mischaracterization of Governor Perry's position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting "boots on the ground" along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.

Texas Rangers have already been put along the border to guard the border where the federal government has failed to guard it. Former Senator Rick Santorum's sound-bite attempts to paint Governor Perry as soft on border control have apparently been politically successful, judging by polls. But his repeated interrupting of Perry's presentation of his case during the recent debate is the kind of cheap political trick that contributes nothing to public understanding and much to public misunderstanding.

Those of us who disagree with Governor Perry's decision to allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend the state colleges and universities, under the same terms as Texas citizens, need at least to understand what his options were. These were children who were here only because of their parents' decisions and who had graduated from a Texas high school.

Governor Perry saw the issue as whether these children should now be allowed to continue their education, and become self-supporting taxpayers, or whether Texas would be better off with a higher risk of those young people becoming dependents or worse. I still see Governor Perry's decision as an error, but the kind of error that a decent and humane individual would be tempted to make.

I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don't exist -- and we don't want to end up settling for a warm body.

Ultimately, this is not about Governor Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the "gotcha" attackers demonstrate they do not have.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #788 on: September 27, 2011, 11:29:54 AM »

Good analysis by Sowell (no surprise there) but deeply concerning is Perry's ability to defend himself and mount an attack.

IMHO a border fence the whole length of the border is not only a stupidity, it also would be an ecological disaster with the disruptions it would cause to animal movements.  Perry's "boots on the ground" is the way to go for most of the border.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #789 on: September 27, 2011, 12:16:06 PM »

Exactly what species would be impacted and to what degree by an intact border fence?
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #790 on: September 27, 2011, 12:37:02 PM »

I wasn't aware of Paul's ties to stormfront. That is indeed alarming.

I agree with Guro Crafty on the border  fence issue. Any fence can be thwarted, as well as being costly and still need to be manned/supervised. Boots on the ground is definitely the way to go.

I need a few minutes to digest the other stuff.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #791 on: September 27, 2011, 12:40:30 PM »

November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden

When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."


When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."


Ron Paul is different. 


Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.  He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions.  Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain.  And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.


Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5  "patriot money-bomb plot." 


On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com.  It reads:

Dear Congressman Paul:


Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.


Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?


More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto.  His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.


Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?


As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?


As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?


Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.


Respectfully, Michael Medved
Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.


There is more.  The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul.  The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week.  Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges.  Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered.  Not Paul.


Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls.  Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update]  Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.


Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation.  Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting",  Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November".  The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site.  Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.


Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response.  In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org.  After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:

"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director.  Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken.  I doubt there is anything we can do legally.  Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated.  I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation.  It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue.  We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."
Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"


Benton's response:

"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."
On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying: 

"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together.  Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future.  Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future.  Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront.  No IP address has been blocked.  Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign. 


The white supremacists do more than raise funds.  Blogger Adam Holland reports:

"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S." 
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries".   When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,

"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?" 
The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters.  Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign.  Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign.  Not Ron Paul.


Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site.  Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him.  Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize.  Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.


On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings.  Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry."  Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn".  BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."     


Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter.  "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show."  Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts.  These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point.  Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.


There are others.  In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.     

Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope."  Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link).  Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources. 


Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other: 

A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review."  The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.
A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.
There is more to the Paul campaign than racists.  The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support.  The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21. 

"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."
Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job."  But the "truthers" aren't fooled.  Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300.  Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution.  Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600. 

Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months.  Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign.  LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3.  In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run."  Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.


Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims.  Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser.  There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.


An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America."  MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group.  The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy." 


MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:

"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah." 
A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?"  A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.


The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well.  David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."  Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos.  Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories. 


The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988.  Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.


Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't.  Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks.  Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America.  On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11".  Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic."  He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:

"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."
Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence.  But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males."  During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about  a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article.  Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." 


Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul.  He claims:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing.  'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" 
Adds Texas Monthly:

"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?"  Wrote Paul,

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups." 
What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS).  Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.


Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard.  Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:

"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits."  Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."
If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate."  But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."


The double standard raises questions.  Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:

"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism." 
"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul.  Lang claims,

"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams...." 
Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:

"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"
Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates?  Paul's interpretation of American history is false.  This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":   

"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"‘...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"
Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments.  As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.


In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com.  In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved!  Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."
Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:

"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin?  ... I'm voting for Ron Paul." 
Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support.  Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis.  Really?  Why?


Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives.  Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush.  In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel."  Rockwell continues:

"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves... (etc)"
and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association." 


Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association."   No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's.  Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell?  Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them. 


Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.   


Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved.  But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response. 


Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate.  They should be careful what they ask for.  If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions.  Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html at September 27, 2011 - 12:39:37 PM CDT
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #792 on: September 27, 2011, 12:57:34 PM »


http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/09/27/obama-fundraising-incurs-huge-dropoff/

Obama Fundraising Suffers Huge Drop-off

by Keith Koffler on September 27, 2011, 8:38 am


President Obama will raise substantially less in the second quarter of his campaign than the first, according to the New York Times.

The paper writes that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has told Democratic officials that the president will raise about $55 million in the quarter that ends Sept. 30, about $30 million less than he raised the first quarter of his campaign – which was the second quarter of the year, ending June 30.

The news was – gosh who would have expected – buried within the Times story.

No doubt, $55 million is a lot of money. But something’s not right.

The campaign attributes part of the decline to the need for Obama to stay in Washington address budget battles with Republicans. That is – sorry for the inconvenience – the need to be president.

But a separate  Times article Saturday that said many small donors are hesitant to start giving to Obama again. And it’s no secret that even for Democrats, the thrill is gone.

This helps explain the vitriol Obama has been dumping out on the campaign trail. He needs to get people motivated to send him their money, and if he can get the hating thing going – hate Republicans, hate the rich, hate EVERYONE – maybe they’ll part with some cash.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #793 on: September 27, 2011, 01:06:11 PM »

Might also add that Texas has a river across the border, different than other states not as suitable for fencing.  The point to most citizens far away really has to do with results.  We can't have sovereignty without security.

I had the opportunity to check out a different liquid border over the weekend, slipping in and out of Canada by canoe unnoticed.  The Boundary Waters on the US side and Quetico Park on the Canadian side combine for about 2 million acres of virtually untouched northern lakes and forests wilderness.  Some border security there but no fence.  God's creatures roam freely! (http://photos.bwca.com/m/MCSWEEM-050710-125458.JPG)  Drifting from the topic, highly recommended for a father-son, family or friends adventure.  
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #794 on: September 27, 2011, 01:40:03 PM »

As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm sold. EDIT: - By "sold" I mean there is no way that I would support someone that wouldn't even renounce something that bad. In short, I won't be voting for Paul.

I want a candidate that trims down IMO what has become a oversize, inefficient, invasive government, that stand for Americans (and to be clear - that means Americans of ever creed and ethnicity), but is hard on illegal immigration (legal immigrants can and should be welcomed), and supports the military wholeheartedly (Afghanistan and Iraq, right or wrong, we're in it it now and we need to be vigilant).

McCain..... I'm never going to be sold on the Patriot Act and he supports it. I'd rather accept the fact that someday something bad may happen to me and keep my privacy. Too much fear is sold wholesale these days to the masses in order to allow the government to grow. I'm certain that this isn't what the nation's founders had in mind and as much as we have advanced technologically speaking, technological advances shouldn't override bedrock principles...ever.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 01:42:26 PM by DF » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31515


« Reply #795 on: September 27, 2011, 01:49:45 PM »

GM: Concerning the consequences of animal movements that would be blocked by a fence, I am sorry but I have no citation, merely whatever credibility I may have with you as someone who is capable of sizing things up and not getting bamboozled too often.
Logged
Hello Kitty
Guest
« Reply #796 on: September 27, 2011, 01:50:43 PM »

Might also add that Texas has a river across the border, different than other states not as suitable for fencing.  The point to most citizens far away really has to do with results.  We can't have sovereignty without security.

I had the opportunity to check out a different liquid border over the weekend, slipping in and out of Canada by canoe unnoticed.  The Boundary Waters on the US side and Quetico Park on the Canadian side combine for about 2 million acres of virtually untouched northern lakes and forests wilderness.  Some border security there but no fence.  God's creatures roam freely! (http://photos.bwca.com/m/MCSWEEM-050710-125458.JPG)  Drifting from the topic, highly recommended for a father-son, family or friends adventure.  

Doug, you make an interesting point. I too, have been to the Canadian border numerous times and in all honestly, there is no way to efficiently or cheaply build a wall along the northern border. I too, have had the opportunity to slip across the border (should I have wanted to) both in the north and the south (I have been around both borders often and know them well), and even with motion detectors and cameras in certain areas, the only way to effectively guard either one of them, would be with patrols (which can still be thwarted).

Simply put, there is no way to guard the border that cannot or will not be overcome with anyone that has a sufficient amount of resolve and the slightest bit of training so.... let's guard it in the most cost effective manner and spend the other money on Intel and make laws that make it extremely difficult to make a life here illegally.

In my mind's eye, troops and patrols are the way to go, but that's just my opinion.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6007


« Reply #797 on: September 27, 2011, 02:26:00 PM »

DF,  You make good sense to me on the role of government, immigration and foreign policy.  The only area I disagree is in the details of the Patriot Act.  I don't want to lose any privacy either but I don't think I lost any with that.  If a known terrorist reaches me by accident, cell phone to cell phone, it would not be outside of the principles of a free and secure society that law enforcement may find that out and want to pursue it with me.  McCain is yesterday's news, now we need to figure out what to do with these guys.

From my point of view, a) Obama and all of his left governing big government philosophy must go, b) conservatives with clear principles are actually more electable than mushy moderates because they can articulate a clear difference, and c) as Obama used to say, this is our moment.  It is no time to put up a weak, unqualified, unprincipled or ineffective leader.

My perfect candidate is someone with the oratory and clear thinking of Marco Rubio, with the detailed knowledge of the complex bills of government like Paul Ryan, with the executive in government  experience 2 terms or more like Rick Perry, with the private sector experience Romney or Hermann Cain and with the foreign policy experience of General Petraeus. That fantasy candidate isn't available now and never will be.  So we will take a chance now and place our bets on one of these guys.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #798 on: September 27, 2011, 04:52:41 PM »

DF,

All the hype about the PATRIOT act is unfounded. Do a search, it's been discussed in depth here.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #799 on: September 27, 2011, 04:55:21 PM »


http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/27/open-thread-obama-speech-in-denver-on-porkulus-ii-economic-boogaloo/

Open thread: Obama speech in Denver on Porkulus II: Economic Boogaloo

posted at 3:25 pm on September 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

 
Barack Obama has used Denver as a friendly platform over the last few years.  He built the Barackapolis in the Mile High City to accept his party’s nomination in 2008, and in 2009 signed the stimulus bill in Denver.  He returns to Denver today to speak at a 4 pm ET event to build support for his new stimulus bill, in a political environment which the local ABC affiliate notes has changed significantly in two years — even if reporter/producer Deb Stanley can’t get 2009 history correct in her piece:
 

It’s a different Colorado for President Barack Obama.
 
In early 2009, Obama chose Denver as his backdrop to sign the sweeping $787 billion stimulus bill into law, an ambitious plan that had the backing of both parties.
 
When he visits Lincoln High School in Denver Tuesday, Obama will be pitching another economic stimulus — this time to a skeptical state with unemployment around 8.5 percent. Republicans and even some Democrats say the president faces an uphill battle next year.
 
It “had the backing of both parties”?  Er … no.  The 2009 stimulus bill was adamantly opposed by the Republican Party, and got exactly zero GOP votes in the House.  It only received three Republican votes in the Senate, one of which belonged to Arlen Specter, who switched parties shortly thereafter.  Republican budgets this year got more bipartisan support than the Porkulus disaster did in 2009.
 
Let’s hope that voters in Colorado have better memories than Stanley, and clearer perspectives on politics.  And according to Politico, it seems that they do:
 

The president, who pitches his new jobs plan at a downtown Denver high school this afternoon on his way home from a three-day West Coast trip, faces a surprisingly tough fight in a state one Obama adviser recently labeled as “the bellwether of bellwethers.”
 
What is particularly worrisome for the Obama campaign is that Colorado in many ways is the most friendly of the high-stakes, fast-changing swing states — that also include Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin — that he’s banking on for 2012.
 
A lot has changed since Obama’s unexpected romp here, little of it the good from the perspective of the president’s supporters. Unemployment has spiked to 8.5 percent, and with it the tea party’s popularity; Latino support is ebbing amid frustration over Obama’s failure to pursue comprehensive immigration reform; and recession-stung independents have, for the moment, tossed Obama onto the “Made in Washington” heap.
 
“A repeat of 2008 is very unlikely… I’d say he’s looking at a high-wire act here,” warns former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who barnstormed Colorado in the waning days of 2008 with Obama and wife Michelle after hosting the Democratic convention here.
 
The current governor, Democrat John Hickenlooper, offers an equally sober assessment. “The president probably can win Colorado, but he’s got a lot of work to do,” he told POLITICO in a telephone interview. “He’s got to make sure that his message gets through, that it is consistent and it’s not drowned out by the distractions of talk radio.”
 
Ah, yes, the “distractions of talk radio” have always had bigger volume in the political square than Presidents.  Talk radio is certainly influential, but hardly compares to the influence of mainstream media outlets, especially for this President, who has enjoyed nearly a free ride until very recently from national outlets.  Or for that matter, local outlets who insist on reporting “facts” like the Republicans supported the first failed stimulus package.
 
Don’t expect too much out of this speech, of course, except more of the soak-the-rich class warfare arguments that Obama has delivered already this month.  That may play well in Denver itself, but it’s not going to sound like the same post-partisan hope and change Obama promised to Coloradans in 2008.
 
Update: It would probably help Obama’s standing in Colorado if his campaign could figure out how to find the state on a map:
 

The press office issued credentials to those reporters and photojournalists who are covering the president’s trip this week to Washington state, California, and Colorado. The credential even provides a handy graphic highlighting (in white) which states the president will visit.
 
The only problem?
 
Wyoming is highlighted, not Colorado.
 
Well, it is hard to keep track of those 57 states, you know …
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 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!