Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
Grew up there, went to college there and started my career there.
Caucuses are tomorrow...
We were home over Christmas and the political circus was insane. I think my parents were getting about 40 calls a day from the candidates campaigns and their PACs.
This is a great response
Warning - NSFW does contain some foul language, yes, even Iowans will swear when provoked.
There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.
Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.
-spence
Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he
would be on a different page than you.
Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he would be on a different page than you.
I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.
My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.
He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...
Quote:
The right Republican
Although the presidency is theirs for the taking, America’s Republicans are in danger of throwing it away
Dec 31st 2011 Print Edition
IN JANUARY the battle to become the world’s most powerful person begins—with small groups of Iowans “caucusing” to choose a Republican nominee for the White House. It is a great opportunity for them. Barack Obama is clearly beatable. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is now; Mr Obama’s approval rating, which tends to translate accurately into vote-share, is down in the mid-40s. Swing states like Florida, Ohio and even Pennsylvania look well within the Republicans’ grasp.
Yet recent polls show the president leading all his rivals: an average of two points ahead of Mitt Romney, eight points over Ron Paul and nine points over Newt Gingrich, according to RealClearPolitics.com. No doubt some rather flawed personalities play a part in that; but so does the notion that something has gone badly wrong with the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Rather than answering the call for a credible right-of-centre, pro-business party to provide independents, including this newspaper, with a choice in November, it is saddling its candidate with a set of ideas that are cranky, extreme and backward-looking.
That matters far beyond this election—and indeed America’s shores. Across the West nations are struggling to reform government. At their best the Republicans have combined a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepreneurial pragmatism. It is in everybody’s interests that they become champions of such policies again. That is not impossible, but there is a lot of catching up to do.
Please sign on the dotted line
Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). America is a conservative place; every Republican nominee, including those The Economist has backed in the past, has signed up to pretty uncompromising views on God, gays and guns. But even allowing for that, the party has been dragged further and further to the right. Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.
More depressingly, the fatwas have stifled ideas, making the Republican Party the enemy of creative positions it once pioneered. The idea of requiring every American to carry health insurance (thus broadening the insurance pool and reducing costs) originated in the conservative Heritage Foundation as a response to Clinton-care, and was put into practice by then-Governor Romney in Massachusetts. All this Mr Romney has had to disavow, just as Mr Gingrich has had to recant his ideas on climate change, while Rick Perry is still explaining his appalling laxity as governor of Texas in allowing the children of illegal immigrants to receive subsidised college education.
On the economy, where this newspaper has often found the most common ground with the Republicans, the impact has been especially unfortunate. America’s commercial classes are fed up with a president they associate with big government, red tape and class warfare. A Republican could stake out a way to cut the deficit, reform taxes and refashion government. But instead of businesslike pragmatism, there is zealotry. The candidates have made a fetish out of never raising taxes (even when it involves getting rid of loopholes), while mostly ignoring tough decisions about cutting spending on defence or pensions. Such compassionless conservatism (slashing taxes for the rich and expenditure on the poor) comes with little thought as to which bits of government spending are useful. Investing in infrastructure, redesigning public education and maintaining unemployment benefits in the worst downturn since the Depression are hardly acts of communism.
We didn’t leave you; you left us
Elections are decided in the middle. If the Republicans choose an extreme candidate, they can hardly be surprised if independents plump for Mr Obama, or look to a third-party candidate. But there could be two better outcomes for them.
The first would be if Mr Romney secures a quick victory, defies his base and moves firmly to the centre. In theory, there is enough in his record to suggest that he may yet be the chief executive America needs, though such boldness is asking a lot of a man who still seems several vertebrae short of a backbone (John McCain, a generally braver man, flunked it in 2008). The alternative is that the primary race grinds to a stalemate, with neither Mr Romney nor one of his rivals able to secure victory. Then a Bush, Daniels or Christie just might be tempted into the contest. It is a sad commentary that this late in the day “the right Republican” does not even seem to be running yet.
i thought the video was great. I had no idea iowa was a state.
Thats funny.
when you put up pictures of you with long hair, I had no idea you were a man....
Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Thats funny.
when you put up pictures of you with long hair, I had no idea you were a man....
Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....
He's just the flavor of the month for the whackos in the GOP base who won't vote for Romney because they believe that he's a devil worshipper.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
He's just the flavor of the month for the whackos in the GOP base who won't vote for Romney because they believe that he's a devil worshipper.
they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues. romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue, he's squishy on immigration. He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway. He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day
they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues.
Huh?
Quote:
romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue,
Actually the individual mandate, which Romney has never advocated at the federal level, was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.
Quote:
he's squishy on immigration.
His position has moved to the right a bit erratically, but the furthest left it's ever been is still similar to President Bush.
Quote:
He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway.
No, 4 years ago he finished a distant second 10 points behind Huck. This time he finished in first, over 4 points ahead of Paul who was expected to win.
Quote:
He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day
Isn't that the point, to get elected?
Agree the field is weak overall but the lackluster support for Romney seems to be more about his moderate stances on some domestic issues more than his ability to be a strong executive. He may not rally the religious right, but unless you're really anti-Mormon Republicans and a lot of Independents will vote for Romney over Obama.
Romney will likely shift back to the middle and pick a moderate VP like Condi. If so he has a very good chance of beating Obama.
they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues. romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue, he's squishy on immigration. He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway. He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day
You're giving them way too much credit. Santorum ran strong in Iowa because 60% of the voters who turned out believe that LDS is a false religion that was formed by a false prophet, and a significant percentage of those believe that they are idol worshippers.
NH's Republicans are just as fiscally conservative, just as anti-immigrant, as any state's, and Romney currently leads there by double digits. And BTW---they, among all voters, should know Romney's record as governor.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....
Exit polling showed something like 60% of voters were Evangelical or Born-again Christians. Is it really that surprising that a social conservative "came out of nowhere"?
Now that he's the flavor of the week, it'll be interesting how he deals with questions like being named the "Most Corrupt Congressman" in 2006. Newt had to answer to his infidelities while at the top, Santorum will not have to answer to this.
Another interesting part of the exit polling was who did and didn't vote for Paul: he got 48% of Independents, over half of the 17-29y/o crowd and (if I remember correctly) only 18% of baby boomers. If the numbers are similar going forward, it demonstrates that "business in Washington as usual" candidates aren't going to fly with the younger crowd. Also, as the baby boomers start dying off, there is a potential for a political evolution moving forward. Obviously, that's a far too deep look into what's merely a sliver of the nation but, I'm actually pretty curious to see how the next few polls work out in terms of the details of demographics each candidate is attracting.
I Agree. Romney will be the Nominee, but if Perry, Bachman et al. bow out, then he will get a bump from the religious right.... Romney will sweat a bit more with that, and 'No More Mr. Nice Guy Newt....'
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
fact remains Romney did not gain any more that he had in 2008. Same exact %. Thats important.
You can argue all you want but as the last few months have proven, repubs are going for anyone but Romney. iChrist - wasnt it time or newsweek that had a headline " why dont they like me" with Romneys mug on it? He has few passionate supporters. It aint his religion, its his lack of credibility and changing of his story to fit the current need. He is an oportunist and is viewed as such.
Romney isn't sexy, he's a bit smarmy and the Right doesn't like his changing positions to appear more "conservative".
That being said, he's perhaps the smartest person in the group that has an executive mindset. Yes, he's not perfect, but he's the best GOP candidate to potentially beat Obama.
If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.
If by some reason Santorum could pull this off, we all get to see first hand what conservative means away from the coasts. I wager that most on both sides of the aisle won't like it.
Nobody will notice him, we'll all have raging boners!
The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.
If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.
Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.
The situation appears to be that Republicans were blocking the appointment on ideological grounds, where they opposed the laws the appointment was intended to oversee. Without the appointment that area of government would cease to function.
However you, or whatever opinion you read think the situation "appears" to be--and that opinion and those laws and that agency are formed partially if not wholly on"ideological" grounds--the appointment is supposed to be debated in the Senate for its advice and consent. So long as Congress is not in recess, a recess appointment cannot be made. These appointments were not made in time for the debate, a move that Obama made to circumvent that Constitutionally mandated debate. He wanted to wait for a recess to block that debate. Who is blocking who is a matter of politically slanted opinion.
If anything it looks like Republicans were intentionally impeding the President's Constitutional authority to execute existing US law.
No, he does not have constitutional authority to make a recess appointment if Congress is not in recess. And yes, Repubs were intentionally impeding him from avoiding the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. He, or you, or the Dems, may not like the process (which they have used to their advantage), But one of the Constitutional purposes of the Senate is to slow down legislation, to debate and deliberate, to oppose what it should oppose. And much "existing" US" law, especially that law that has been created by these administrative regulatory agencies does not have support in the Constitution. They have been unconstitutionally given powers that were granted to Congress, and Congress was not given the authority to delegate powers of legislation to unelected agencies. The power of legislation Constitutionally rests on those representatives that the people elect. These agencies have been given that power to legislate (and therefor tax) without representation--a grievance at the very heart and soul of the American Revolution.
Perhaps the real question here is if a pro forma recess is really a recess? I don't think the Constitution is really clear here. It doesn't seem to pass the smell test regardless of who's doing it.
-spence
The recess power has been "interpreted" for over 100 years by attornees general and those they designate in the DOJ office of legal counsel that an official, legal senate recess is of at least 10-25 days duration. In a 2010 SCOTUS hearing on an NLRB issue, Obama's deputy solicitor general Neal Katyn said "The--the recess appointment power can work--IN A RECESS. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." And yes, Harry Reid blocked Bush's recess appointmens in his last two years with pro forma recess. It only takes one Senator to block the move to recess for any reason. It appears that this move to overide Congress is another small chink in the Constitutional separation of powers--another transfer of power to the almighty executive.
BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?
BTW, have you noticed that the original discussion on this from yesterday has disappeard? Or is it just on my computer? Do the rest of you have yesterdays posts?
JohnR whacked the server and had to go to a previous backup. I'm afraid all our poetry has been forever lost.
I remembered this open topic so I brought the issue back up.
. Pretty funny.
Hybrid Mode
