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 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...
Is it possible to "combine a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepenurial pragmatism," yet still have differing opionions on "God, gays, and guns"? Or different views on taxes, abortion, immigration, environment, health insurance, Israel, and regulatory agencies? Or must the "right Republican" have the "correct" views on all these issues (presumably the infallilble middle/moderate position). And if it is not possible to have different (extreme--that which differs from the middle) views, the middle will automatically "plump for Mr. Obama" who must then, presumably, have the correct middle views. But if he does, then wouldn't the middle vote for him regardless? This is presuming, of course, that he also has the correct "muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualsim and entrepeneurial pragmatism," or that they either aren't paying attention, don't care, or don't have a clue about those things. Of course, If Obama does have those correct attributes as well as the correct middle views on the other stuff--he's in! Why bother about "the right Republican?"
But if the middle insists that it will only vote for a candidate with those correct middle views, then isn't it being as extreme as those even further to the right Republicans?
Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views? When it comes to the final vote, won't some more simple common threads that divide the parties make the difference, and won't the middle/independent voters have to decide on the difference in those common threads? And when we speak of that middle, aren't there, even in it, differing opinions in all those points ascribed to it?
But, I suppose, it's comforting to compartmentalized minds to have solid categories--right, left, middle--in order to percieve a well-ordered, predictable world.
Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views?
I think this is the crux of the article.
Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!
The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".
Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!
Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.
There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.
Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...
I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.
Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!
The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".
Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!
Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.
There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.
Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...
I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.
-spence
Sounds like you're confidently in the bag for status quo. But nobody seems to be satisfied with how it is. Down the same road regardless who, eh? If the election depends on the middle, the middle must be satisfied with the status quo (i guess that's sort of a definitionf of middle--status quo). Yet everybody bitches about the results--they keep on voting for the same middle and keep getting the same crappy results. Ain't that somebody's definition for insanity?
Sounds like you're confidently in the bag for status quo. But nobody seems to be satisfied with how it is. Down the same road regardless who, eh? If the election depends on the middle, the middle must be satisfied with the status quo (i guess that's sort of a definitionf of middle--status quo). Yet everybody bitches about the results--they keep on voting for the same middle and keep getting the same crappy results. Ain't that somebody's definition for insanity?
No, we certainly need to address our structural issues. Both parties are in denial here IMHO.
Some real time stats just for you guys...My father just returned (minutes ago) from the Republican Caucus at the elementary school I attended. I'd note it's a mixed but relatively professional community.
Undecided 1
Huntsman 2
Bachmann 7
Perry 12
Gingrich 25
Paul 29
Santorum 39
Romney 84
No, we certainly need to address our structural issues. Both parties are in denial here IMHO.
Some real time stats just for you guys...My father just returned (minutes ago) from the Republican Caucus at the elementary school I attended. I'd note it's a mixed but relatively professional community.
Undecided 1
Huntsman 2
Bachmann 7
Perry 12
Gingrich 25
Paul 29
Santorum 39
Romney 84
-spence
Seems like latest results have Romney and Santorum tied at 24% and Santorum is rising.
Structural issues . . . both parties in denial . . . duh, ain't that . . .like, the status quo?
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
Actually the individual mandate, which Romney has never advocated at the federal level, was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.
as governor for a liberal state he passed mandatory healthcare legistlation. Repubs dont like that, period.
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.
No - In the 2008 Republican Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the total, In the 2012 caucuses, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the total. Not a lot of headway Spence.
GWB did a lot of damage to repubs and most dont believe he was convervative. I think repubs may stay home so not to risk further tarnishing their reputation.
-spence
taken from another article which sums up my view-
After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to "Obama care," after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives ... after all of these unmistakable signs of public -- let alone Republican -- sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama's left on Medicare, who helped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.
s governor for a liberal state he passed mandatory healthcare legistlation. Repubs dont like that, period.
Very similar to what was proposed by a leading conservative think tank and subsequently applauded by the self described "most principled conservative" in the race.
What Romney enacted in Massachusetts certainly isn't Obama care.
Quote:
No - In the 2008 Republican Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney received 30,021 votes, 25% of the total, In the 2012 caucuses, Romney received 30,015 votes, 25% of the total. Not a lot of headway Spence.
Jimmy jimmy jimmy...
Ron Paul and Rick Santorum made serious investments to mobilize support across the entire state while Romney largely ignored Iowa until just before the caucus. Santorum made a late run because of some effective campaigning as well as being the only player left to pick up the evangelical support left by Bachmann and Perry.
So in context of 2012, Romney did pretty well. I don't think anyone expects Paul, Santorum or Gingrich to do well in New Hampshire. In fact, I think Gingrich will get knocked out or nearly out before he has a chance to gain some momentum with a success down south.
Huntsman could benefit from all of this coming out of New Hampshire, but Romney is clearly in the lead.
Quote:
taken from another article which sums up my view-
After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to "Obama care," after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives ... after all of these unmistakable signs of public -- let alone Republican -- sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama's left on Medicare, who helped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Who ever wrote it clearly knows nothing about Romney care or his quite detailed economics plan.
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.
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.
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.
You're referring to less than a hundred thousand people vs. millions in the repub party. I'm not out on a limb here, every single pundit shares the same view. In a period of increased focus on conservatism among voters, Romney is a weak candidate. He will get the nomination but reluctantly.
. Pretty funny.
Linear Mode
