OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[Teal]

Palin-Jindal '12

Rob,

Are you really rooting for the ticket above? Even with stuff like this coming out?

My tongue is planted in cheek, although I do think that Palin's a remains a legitimate player.

I'm giving very little weight to these "leaks." Not only is it typical losing campaign mudslinging and recrimination, but you have the additional animosity from the Lieberman boosters who were close to McCain from his earlier days being particularly embittered that the GOP blocked that move.

We have a couple years to sort out what she's really about. I've said this before, but her image is substantailly better than Reagan's was for years before he was elected. Hell, even while he was in office people thought he was stupid then senile...conclusions which have been authoritatively dispelled by the release of his diaries and correspondence.

I'm not saying that she's Reagan, btw. Just that politicians' images are not always accurate representations of the people. She may very well be back.

Jindal walks on water though.

Bunch of dipshits who didn't like her from the word go, just because she wasn't Leiberman. Nothing to see here.

[JackB1]

You were the one that made the statement proposing we should give credit to ALL prior presidents for not having ANY attacks. 1993 was an attack during a time when Bush was not president.

I guess you missed the sarcasm there. Matt, why you feel "your mission in life" is to argue whatever I post is beyond me. You just argue for the sake of arguing. You reming me of Tucker Carlson. You try and follow the reasoning and logic behind his arguments and you just end up confused. Maybe you have a future on MSNBC?

Do us both a favor and put me on your "ignore" list.

[RobVarak]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

That's very much an outgrowth of the predominance of the economy as an issue, I think. Assuming things are stable by '12, I suspect a social moderate like Romney won't stand a snowball's chance of winning the nomination.

Right or wrong, conservatives feel that their "winning" many of the ballot initiatives this year despite Democrats' success and McCain's failure mean that the GOP needs to run a true conservative candidate.

[JackB1]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

Should then be an easy repeat win for Obama

[Teal]

Not a good start, if you want people to continue to think Obama's going to pay your mortgage, and cell phone bills...

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280

I swear, there oughta be a basic IQ test taken before you're allowed to vote...

[Teal]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

Should then be an easy repeat win for Obama

god, I can't wait until 2012 to see what you're saying then...

[JackB1]

Is Obama's mention of giving people the same helth plan option that congress gets the same thing as the "other option" he mentioned for healthcare if people don't want to stick with their employer provided plan?

If that's the case, then everyone where I work will likely jump over to the plan congress gets. I pay about $400 a month for family coverage, and that doesn't include the copays and deductables.

It sounds great until you have 75% of the country on that plan. Who pays for difference? If it's our governemt, then it all coems right back to us in increased taxes.

I'm hopful for a better system that reduces our costs. I think our care is top-notch, it's the costs that I have issue with.

So you are for only the privileged and well off people having health care in this country then? If building a better system costs money, then forget it? Don't you realize that better health care can lead to huge savings in other areas that can offset additional costs? Everything is not always black and white as you seem to see it.

[JackB1]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

Should then be an easy repeat win for Obama

god, I can't wait until 2012 to see what you're saying then...

If Romney, Huckabee & Palin are the best they can come up with, then
I will be saying the same thing then. If Obama gets the country moving again in the right direction, he will not be replaced by an "aso-ran" from the '08 Election. The position is Obama's to lose.

[Naples39]

Saw an exit poll of Republican voters and their choice for '12 now would be Romney, Huckabee and then Palin.

That's very much an outgrowth of the predominance of the economy as an issue, I think. Assuming things are stable by '12, I suspect a social moderate like Romney won't stand a snowball's chance of winning the nomination.

Right or wrong, conservatives feel that their "winning" many of the ballot initiatives this year despite Democrats' success and McCain's failure mean that the GOP needs to run a true conservative candidate.

Romney ran as a social conservative, though evidently republicans didn't buy into the campaign promises in the face off of actual history like dems did for Obama. Still, even before the economy became the overwhelming issue, Romney was the clear number 2 in the primaries behind McCain (and was the frontrunner early).

I think it's premature to say what kind of nominee the GOP will throw out next time around. Chances are they'll wait and see what sticks in terms of criticism of the Obama campaign, then go from there.

If I had to speculate, I would guess the GOP will try to re-focus small government and fiscal conservative values, which Bush pissed all over to both party's dismay.

[Brando70]

I swear, there oughta be a basic IQ test taken before you're allowed to vote...

I'm surprised you would want to disenfranchise Sarah Palin.

I kid, I kid, but I had to swing at that one.

Honestly, there is a lot of work to do and I hope Obama puts a good team together to solve these issues. I believe he will -- that's why I voted for him -- but the problems we're facing are very difficult and challenging.

[JackB1]

When she showed up for rallies, tens out thousands of people showed up. When McCain was on his own is was in the hundreds.

That's because she's a heck of a lot more interesting to listen to and look at then McCain was. Has zero to do with her qualifications to be VP. She became the "celebrity" that the Rep's were accusing Obama of being. Plus, those people at the rallies were voting Rep. anyway. She did nothing to convince any of the uncommitted voters.

[Teal]

Should then be an easy repeat win for Obama

god, I can't wait until 2012 to see what you're saying then...

If Romney, Huckabee & Palin are the best they can come up with, then
I will be saying the same thing then. If Obama gets the country moving again in the right direction, he will not be replaced by an "aso-ran" from the '08 Election. The position is Obama's to lose.

Okaaaaaayyyy....not one minute in office yet, and he's a shoe-in depending on who runs against him?! Gotcha. We'll see...

[JackB1]

Okaaaaaayyyy....not one minute in office yet, and he's a shoe-in depending on who runs against him?! Gotcha. We'll see...

If he improves things, then yes, he's a shoe-in. If things stay the same or get worse he's a "shoe-out"

[JRod]

For Palin to be the pick in 2012, the base would still have to be strong in the GOP.

Palin might run but her party is about to shift on her. Social conservatives will lose their power base. Fiscal conservatives will see their star rise. Palin will be the champion of the far-right but that's not where her party with be in 2012.

Romney and Huckabee are also done. We'll see a new GOP candidate in 2012, it might be Jindal. I think you'll see the GOP lost until 2016. They'll make up seats in the house and senate however, that's just how it works. There's always a slide to the other party contrary to the sitting President.

Heck it took dems 6 years to regroup after Bush. This time it's different because of the economy, two wars, and other issues in this country. I can't foresee the GOP finding it's footing in two years.

One of the things is that Obama isn't going to try to initiate sweeping changes like Clinton did early on. I've read a few articles, that he's taking lessens from FDR and Lincoln, to make incremental changes and build off of those. If this is how he governs, his base might be upset, but it will keep the GOP at bay well into his second term.

[JRod]

If I had to speculate, I would guess the GOP will try to re-focus small government and fiscal conservative values, which Bush pissed all over to both party's dismay.

The bailout though strikes at the very heart of that argument. From oversight needed to monitor certain regulations, to the huge bailout, I think there's a shift saying well you can't have small and weak government that is prey to free-market scandals like the banking mess.

I have a feeling both sides with start to call it smart government. Being small to allow for growth and prosperity but getting tough to regulate certain industries so that we don't have another mess like this.

[XXXIV]

Okaaaaaayyyy....not one minute in office yet, and he's a shoe-in depending on who runs against him?! Gotcha. We'll see...

If he improves things, then yes, he's a shoe-in. If things stay the same or get worse he's a "shoe-out"

Things to be better than today?...Thats a pretty low bar. ...Not the one he has set for himself. He has created some great expectations.

Not everyone walks into a polling place and blinded votes D or R.

[matthewk]

I guess you missed the sarcasm there. Matt, why you feel "your mission in life" is to argue whatever I post is beyond me. You just argue for the sake of arguing. You reming me of Tucker Carlson. You try and follow the reasoning and logic behind his arguments and you just end up confused. Maybe you have a future on MSNBC?

Do us both a favor and put me on your "ignore" list.

I wish I could ignore you. I feel compelled to respond to you because you keep throwing out comment that either make no sense, hide the truth in a very partisan way, ot just flat out make s*&t up.

Maybe we should take this to the people: has JackB made any sense in his arguments over the past 24 hours. I'll keep it just to that so I don't have to go digging through the archives for every non-sensical thing you've ever said.

Maybe you should take the hint of the other 5-6 people here who have already debunked your terrorist attack theory, that it's not just me.

[Naples39]

Palin might run but her party is about to shift on her. Social conservatives will lose their power base. Fiscal conservatives will see their star rise. Palin will be the champion of the far-right but that's not where her party with be in 2012.

The bailout though strikes at the very heart of that argument. From oversight needed to monitor certain regulations, to the huge bailout, I think there's a shift saying well you can't have small and weak government that is prey to free-market scandals like the banking mess.

Pardon me for being a little confused here!

[matthewk]

Is Obama's mention of giving people the same helth plan option that congress gets the same thing as the "other option" he mentioned for healthcare if people don't want to stick with their employer provided plan?

If that's the case, then everyone where I work will likely jump over to the plan congress gets. I pay about $400 a month for family coverage, and that doesn't include the copays and deductables.

It sounds great until you have 75% of the country on that plan. Who pays for difference? If it's our governemt, then it all coems right back to us in increased taxes.

I'm hopful for a better system that reduces our costs. I think our care is top-notch, it's the costs that I have issue with.

So you are for only the privileged and well off people having health care in this country then? If building a better system costs money, then forget it? Don't you realize that better health care can lead to huge savings in other areas that can offset additional costs? Everything is not always black and white as you seem to see it.

Can you read English Jack? How in the H-E-double toothpicks did you come to that conclusion based on what I wrote? Did I say one-f-ing word about denying anyone care? NO! Did I say forget any plan that costs money? NO! Isn't a big problem with healthcare today the cost? A better system should not cost more than the system we have today.

Do you realize how good the care we have really is? I know from firsthand experience. I also know that if an uninsured illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room today, they will not be ignored. YOu seem to think that eveyone is entitled to free healthcare. No matter what the system, I can guarantee you it's not free.

I swear you have canned responses you just cut and paste into these conversations, regardless of what is actually typed. You are obviously not reading or comprehending anything people are saying here, nor do I believe you even try. You say something that people call you on, and you then respond by making more sh&t up, or backtracking on what it was you said you meant. I call BS.

[JRod]

Palin might run but her party is about to shift on her. Social conservatives will lose their power base. Fiscal conservatives will see their star rise. Palin will be the champion of the far-right but that's not where her party with be in 2012.

The bailout though strikes at the very heart of that argument. From oversight needed to monitor certain regulations, to the huge bailout, I think there's a shift saying well you can't have small and weak government that is prey to free-market scandals like the banking mess.

Pardon me for being a little confused here!

The bailout has also put fiscal conservatives on their heels. A huge bailout was needed because "smaller" government wasn't able to be proactive and address the housing/credit crisis before it reached critical.

The bailout strikes at the core of fiscal conservatives beliefs. That doesn't mean the GOP isn't going towards the more Reagan-esque politicians. It's also why I said, that what has happened over the last 8 years has been a repudiation of their entire platform.

Free market mechanisms have led to banking and health care crisis. Social conservatism isn't important when there's a war and the economy is on the cusp of depression. And those social issues that they fought for, ended up to be policies of hate. Directly hypocritical to their beliefs as Christians. It wasn't until late where many social conservatives took on poverty, global warming, health care, the true tenants of Christianity.

It's been a total abject failure. So what any party does after a loss like this is run to what you know works. Smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Except this time, because of the bailout, the arguement that government should "get-out-of-the-way" isn't very strong. That's why it's going to take a lot longer for the GOP to find an argument that works.

[Jared]

Matt and Jack,

If you guys are going to loudly and angrily talk past each other, can you please take it to the PMs? Thanks.

[wco81]

I don't know about social conservatives being on the outs.

The GOP lost more moderates in the NE this week, continuing a trend from 2006.

Their national representation is now even more weighted towards the South and the Plains states.

[webdanzer]

And those social issues that they fought for, ended up to be policies of hate. Directly hypocritical to their beliefs as Christians. It wasn't until late where many social conservatives took on poverty, global warming, health care, the true tenants of Christianity.

One of my favorite Bible passages is Jesus among the herdsmen, dispersing the steer and casting out their flatulence. For Galilee, they say, was hella hot.

[Jackdog]

Don't vets get VA coverage?

Yes. It's good in some ways and bad in many others. I use my wife's plan unless it's rehab or more surgery.

[JRod]

I don't know about social conservatives being on the outs.

The GOP lost more moderates in the NE this week, continuing a trend from 2006.

Their national representation is now even more weighted towards the South and the Plains states.

That's a fair point. But in order for them to win and get back these seats, just being social conservative isn't going to get them elected.