Max

And one comment on the debates the other night, I am STUNNED at how the more "moderate" candidates stood there and when asked about gay marriage, extolled the virtues of "Seperate but equal". Romny baically said that Oh yes... make sure they can have these rights, and those rights, but make sure all these fags know there place, and stay there. Marriage seems like this badge of pride to them as if to say "I can be maried and you can't, so I'm better than you".

I cannot disagree with one word you wrote above, Alphanguy. The only thing that bothers me is that the mainstream media (which some here believe is conservatively biased) never seems to give Obama, Biden, or any other Democrat anywhere near the same amount of heat for opposing gay marriage. And I am deeply disappointed that many leaders in the homosexual community seem to give mainstream Democrats a free pass on this issue. With all due respect to the gay community, the Democrats are taking their votes completely for granted. (I can certainly understand why gays and lesbians would prefer the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. What I cannot understand is why they usually don't embrace the Green Party or some other party that fully supports gay marriage, as opposed to sticking with the Democrats. As a contrast, if you look at the Tea Party, they have constantly threatened to bolt from the GOP if they do not adhere to their agenda.)

It's been said that all the candidates are tip-toeing around Ron Paul, because they fear if they treat him like an outsider, and don't give him the respect he wants, that he'll go for a third party run, ensuring Obama's re-election. Opinions on this? I know many in the Republican party are scared to death of Ron Paul, and see him as a loose cannon.

This is an interesting topic. I used to believe that a Paul third-party candidacy would ensure Obama's re-election, but now I am not so sure, given that many of his supporters are young people who are solidly anti-war (a key group that voted en masse for Obama in 2008). One reason why Huntsman will do so poorly in the NH primary is because he was hoping cross-over Democratic and Independent voters would choose him; instead, most of them are flocking to Paul. Though this is somewhat off-topic, Huntsman made a key mistake by not running to the right of Romney in the GOP primary; Huntsman certainly could have done so by touting his recording in UT (and contrasting that to what Romney did in MA) and stating that he has always been consistent on guns and abortion.

For the first months they only had Lieberman to get them 60 votes, as the GOP, who went on about vote fraud, kept Al Franken from being seated. Not long after that, Ted Kennedy passed away, which meant an empty seat (and he was rarely able to attend in his last months anyway).

The hated Lieberman not only provided the decisive vote for ObamaCare, he was also the Senate co-sponsor (along with Susan Collins) of the bill that allowed gays to openly serve in the military.

Even when the Democrats had 59 Senate seats, that is still a very lopsided majority in my book. (The GOP has never had more than 55 seats since the Great Depression.) However, the Democrats (and those who caucused with them) had 60 seats for more than just the time period from 7/7/09 (when Franken was seated) to 8/25/09 (the day Kennedy died). That's because MA's Democratic governor appointed Paul Kirk to the Senate; he served from 9/24/09 to 2/4/10. It was during that time when Reid shoved ObamaCare down our throats (without a single moderate Republican voting for it).

You left off Bill Clinton, the man GWB and the Republicans spent 8 years blaming for the economy.

Thanks for reminding me. I also forgot to say that the "conservatively biased" mainstream media, the Supreme Court, and DINOs (like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, and Joe Lieberman) are also responsible for the nations problems.

Well, hang on to all of this good and tight. You'll have the next 4 years to blame Obama for everything else.....once he destroys the nominee in the GE.

While Barry isn't going to win re-election in a landslide, I have maintained all along that he will still defeat Willard in November (since general elections are merely personal popularity contests). Given that there will indeed be five more years of Obama, I can only hope that you don't join the ranks of the unemployed anytime soon. Should you be so unfortunate as to lose your job, don't count on getting another decent paying one until 2017; you see, in the Obama economy, employers are so reluctant to hire, and--as a consequence--it has become commonplace for any one particular job to receive several hundred different applicants.

As far as Reagan, here is the same man who raised taes 11 times during his 8 years

Since liberals keep saying that raising taxes will solve our problems, I would think that you would heap praise on St. Ronnie for doing this.

But or course, BARACK is to blame for all of this.

When something goes right--such as Bin Laden's killing--Barry deserves all the credit. However, I fully recognize that the fustercluck our economy has become is not at all his fault. Rather, these are the evil parties responsible:

1. George W. Bush

2. Wall Street (Never mind the fact that they gave money to Barry.)

3. Ronald Reagan (We are now seeing the long-term effects of supply-side economics. And everybody knows that the ultimate goal of supply-siders was to destroy the middle class.)

4. The Tea Party

5. The GOP controlled House

Despite the fact that his own party had lopsided majorites in both houses of Congress for his first two years (and still controls the Senate), Barry is merely a "likeable" but hapless victim of circumstance. In addition to being a tireless crusader for gay marriage, he is doing all he can from preventing us from going into an economic depression, so he deserves to win re-election in a landslide.

I was surprised that all my predictions turned out right, except the part about Santorum finishing ahead of Romney. Yet, if we are to be consistent, Santorum really did "win" last night, since Romney suppressed the black vote and/or employed other dirty tricks in order to squeak out an eight vote victory. (Whenever a Republican wins narrowly--like when Bush won FL by 537 votes in 2000 or won OH by over 110,000 votes in 2004--it is a proven fact that some voter fraud always takes place; Mitt is just warming-up for November.)

I'm not sure what caused Perry's about-face today. Usually, one drops out after stating that he is reassessing his campaign. Perhaps he has deluded himself into thinking he will get Bachmann's votes in SC (when those will really go to Santorum).

Unlike electing an actor who talk to a monkey to the presidency in 1980.

Perhaps you have forgotten that Reagan also spent two terms as governor of America's most populous state.

And yet, Bin Laden was gone within two years on the watch of that "community organizer", something a two term former Governor couldn't do in two whole terms.

I'm glad that you feel an extraordinary foreign policy achievement entitles Barry to a second term. Unfortunately, this was not the view of members of your own party twenty years ago, when unemployment was lower than it is today. Instead, Democrats kept on telling us that foreign policy was virtually irrelevant, that "it's the economy, stupid," and that George H.W. Bush needed to go ASAP. While this is just my opinion, this type of flip-flopping makes Mitt Romney look principled in comparison.

Perry indicated that he may drop out of the race. Without a doubt, he ran the worst campaign of anybody this year (given his horrendous debate performances combined with the fact that he led the polls the moment he entered the race).

Santorum winning...what a joke America!

Sadly, it was no joke when America elected a former "community organizer" and Senate back-bencher to the presidency in 2008.

hi politics thread,

Welcome back to this thread, Qfan! You were much missed.

Who here wants to predict the outcome of tomorrow's IA Republican caucuses? While I cannot guess the percentage of the vote each candidate will garner, here is the placement I believe the GOP candidates (excluding Huntsman, who is not competiting) will finish in:

1. Santorum

2. Romney

3. Paul

4. Gingrich

5. Perry

6. Bachmann

Gingrich peaked too early (and Bachmann peaked way too early), while Santorum is ascending at just the right time. I believe he will win for three reasons: (1) his message resonates with religious conservatives, (2) he visited all 99 of Iowa's counties, and (3) he flew under the radar for so long that none of his opponents attacked him (until it was too late).

My predictive powers are mixed at best, so what I say is hardly set in stone. Polls currently show Santorum, Romney, and Paul in a dead heat, so it is possible that any one of those three could be the winner.

They need 25 seats to regain control but I do not see it happening. Republicans made big gains in state legislatures, so the states that are redistricting will have district gerrymandered to protect Republican incumbents. Not saying the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing, they totally would have (in my state, NY, they passed a law to count prisoners in their home districts for state legislature redistricting instead of at prison because this creates more seats in the liberal downstate as opposed to the more conservative upstate where most of the prisons are).

I think the Democrats could keep the Senate, or it could flip. That is the more interesting chamber to watch for IMO.

Juppiter, I was just being sarcastic with my friend Roman when I said that the Democrats would regain control of the House. In all seriousness, the GOP will retain control unless a far-right fringe candidate (like Santorum or Bachmann) is nominated or a major scandal involving the top Republican Congressional leadership arises shortly before Election Day.

You are absolutely correct that the Senate is the more interesting chamber to watch. The Republicans need a net gain of four seats to take control, and at this point (when the nominees in many races are unknown) it is too hard to predict which party will have the majority in that chamber. Basically, the only seats that one can safely assume will change hands are those from MA, ND, & NE; the Dems will pick-up the MA Senate seat, while seats they currently hold in ND and NE will switch to the GOP.

Since Obama--a man who has always put principle before politics--is going to have huge coattails, will Democrats be able to regain control of the House as well?

Obama is derided by many in his party because they feel he runs against Congress and does not do enough to support Democrats in the Senate. From Carl.

And Carl is right.

If you feel that Barry isn't "progressive" enough, then why is he deserving of a landslide re-election? Is it simply because he isn't "crazy right" like Willard?

It will be a slaughter. Obama in a walk.

Roman, assuming Romney is the GOP nominee, our beloved president will carry every state outside the racist Deep South.

Strangely, Carl doesn't seem to share your optimism regarding a Romney/Obama matchup.

Back when Reid and Pelosi ruled Congress with iron fists, this was Obama's idea of bipartisanship:

http://www.foxnews.c...epublicans-sit/

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

If a Republican ever said Obama should ride in the back, I can only imagine all the whining the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world would have done.

I'm not really sure where Obama is supposed to go after this. He still went on, and on, and on some more, about the glory of bipartisanship

Obama loves to talk about bipartisanship, but back when the Republicans had slim minorities in both the House and Senate, he never asked for Republican input on health care reform (and only sought advice Congressional Democrats). (The president did, however, invite Republicans to golf outings and to a White House Super Bowl party, so I guest that counts as bipartisanship.) It wasn't even until the Summer of 2010 that Obama first reached out to McConnell.

I'm not sure how talking about a do-nothing Congress is pro-Obama. Even most Republicans would probably say that.

The reason why most Republicans would say this is a do-nothing Congress is because their plans stall in the Democratic Senate. However, given the way Obama and the media villify Congress, I wouldn't be surprised if many people are under the impression that the GOP controls that chamber as well. McConnell seems to get far more airtime than Reid, and it is often about how obstructionist he is to the president's "progressive, pro-middle class" agenda.

Making Congress the enemy is a big help to Obama, because he can switch the subject from his own record of incompetence. Harry Truman demonized Congress when he ran for a full-term in 1948, and it worked for him. Chris Matthews and others have applauded Obama for following the same strategy. The only difference--of course--is that the GOP actually controlled both the House and the Senate in 1948. (Again, Obama and his supporters never seem to point out the fact that the Democrats control the Senate, and it looks like many are ignorant enough to believe Congress is completely controlled by Republicans.)

I'm not sure the media has ever painted him as likeable. The stories they like to tell are that he's cold, remote, etc.

Only very rarely have I seen the mainstream media paint him this way. Usually, it is the exact opposite.

NBC and ABC would love someone like Romney. They are full of Republican-leaning outlets and views. Their biggest fantasy is a "moderate" Republican, and even though Romney is hard right on everything, he still fits their view of some kindly tough guy.

Can't speak for ABC, but Brian Williams seems to be a huge Obama lover who is in awe whenever he interviews the president. One night on his broadcast, Williams told his audience the breaking news that the president had the ability to stop a baby from crying (and showed of clip of a baby who stopped crying the moment Barry held it in his arms). On another broadcast, Williams praised the "do-nothing" Congress (the implication being that they are primarily responsible for the awful economy) for actually managing to erect a Christmas tree this year.

Romney will have endless money, and the support of the media.

Obama will raise more money than Romney, and the only media that will be supporting Romney are talk radio and outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch. (Last time I checked, that still constitutes a minority of the media.) Obama is incompetent, but much of the media will still be talking about what a "likeable" guy he is, that he's "the only adult in the room," and that he's a champion of the 99% (despite taking money from the 1%). Additionally, they will focus on how "extreme" the entire Republican Party has become and how everything is the fault of Bush, Congress, or the Tea Party.

Senator Ben Nelson of NE just announced that he will not seek re-election. This really is no surprise, since his approval plunged the moment he provided the decisive vote for ObamaCare. (It is funny that many liberals hate Nelson, given that there indeed would be no ObamaCare if it wasn't for him.)

Whether Nelson ran for re-election or not, NE is going to flip from Democratic to Republican in 2012. So will ND, where Kent Conrad opted not to run for another term. At this moment in time, only one Senate seat is very likely to turn from Republican to Democratic: in heavily liberal MA, incumbent Scott Brown will almost surely lose to Elizabeth Warren.

DaytimeFan, you deserve a lot of praise for your consistency.

With all due respect, if the views of "mainstream Amerericans" are unknown, then the classification of extreme/"crazy" also cannot exist because there would then be no yardstick (other than personal biases) to compare those "fringe" beliefs to.

The media has ignored Ron Paul but he's still the third or fourth most popular candidate and has many devoted supporters.

I just don't think there was ever any real place for Huntsman. He's just out of step.

They shouldn't have ignored Paul either. My own belief is that he was dismissed because he didn't fit the stereotype of the war-mongering Republican.

Huntsman may be out of step with today's GOP, but he represents what mainstream Americans want. That's why he would make a great independent candidate, and it should be noted that he has the personal wealth to make such a run.

DaytimeFan, I don't agree with everything you wrote. However, you make a lot of good points, especially the following:

American children are getting dumber and dumber. Make no mistake, that is why the economy is in the shape it is in, Americans have become too stupid to not make common sense decisions about money, lending and personal finance. They have become massive consumers because they feel entitled, entitled to shop, entitled to buy, entitled to spend, entitled to live a life they cannot afford and have not worked for.

There's little doubt that the economy went into the s#itter because people took out loans on homes, college, etc., that they simply could not afford. (This stupidity applies not only to economic matters, but also to elections: the most charasmatic/"likeable" candidate almost always wins.) No politican will ever dare say the American people are ultimately to blame, because that would be sucidial.

The media is controlled by huge corporations (that get their financing from Wall Street), as you stated. Becasue of his, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy when MSNBC pretends to champion the OccupyWallStreet movement.

Huntsman never even really tried to appeal to the GOP base. He did what you are criticizing Romney for. Huntsman never took a hard line on the GOP issues - abortion, hating gays, the evils of education and science, and thinking all liberals are lazy and trying to destroy America.

Huntsman has offered an economic plan that was praised as the best by the conservative "The Wall Street Journal." While we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter, economics are far more important to a lot of Republican than "hating gays" is. I believe that the media has written Huntsman off all along, in part, because they know he is Obama's worst nightmare. By making him out to be some sort of MSNBC RINO, they are making sure he will never become the nominee. (And for obvious reasons, the far right doesn't want Huntsman to be the nominee.) I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why Huntsman is more moderate/liberal than Romney.

I think that Huntsman has made a mistake by not touting his conservative credentials more. However, Huntsman has never once pandered or flip-flopped, which is in sharp contrast to what Romney constantly does.

The liberals are already celebrating the likely possiblity of a Gingrich nomination. What they fail to realize is that such an occurrence will make it ripe for an independent candidate to succeed, because swing-voters are not going to want to choose between two horrendous options.

Romney is f***ing delusional. He's getting his a$$ kicked in the polls, but still acts like the GOP front-runner, failing to go after Gingrich (and instead aiming his firepower towards Obama).

The GOP establishment picked the wrong horse from the beginning. They should have chosen Huntsman, but somehow felt that Romney was the more conservative of the two. I'll never understand this type of thinking, given that all Huntsman did was serve as Barry's Ambassador to China, while Romney was once pro-chioce, pro-gun control, and pro-government run health care.

Chris basically bashed Obama a few weeks ago, as well as have a number of major DNC boosters. I still believe BAM will pull an LBJ and Hillary Clinton will be drafted. Obama is now polling lower than Carter and has not hit bottom yet. Only a strike on Iran can save Bam but this will piss off the anti-Israel left flank. People, today, want a centrist and Clinton can play that role long enough to win.

Saving ATWT, other people (myself included) have been suspecting this as well. While I think that the chances of Obama dropping out are less than 50%, it certainly is a possiblity; everything depends what the polls look like at the time of the Democratic Convention. If Obama looks much more vulnerable than he is today, the party establishment will put massive pressure on him to hand over all of his delegates to Hillary Clinton.

When LBJ dropped out in 1968, Democratic voters at least had other candidates to choose from; a sleazy, behind-the-scenes switcheroo at the convention is something that is totally up the Clinton's alley (and would rob ordinary Democrats from having a say in who their nominee would be). (Something similar to this scenario actually happened in 2002 in NJ: with the election about one month away, scandal-plagued Senator Robert Toricelli suddenly dropped his re-election bid and Democratic Party bosses replaced him with former Senator Frank Lautenberg.) Although Hillary herself cannot do much to promote such a scheme (since she is SOS), Bill has been pimping the Clinton brand (and trying to overshadow Obama) for quite some time, such as when he recently wrote a book concerning Clintonian solutions for today's economic problems. The sad truth of the matter is that if Obama does drop out, Hillary will win the general election in a cakewalk. (On the bright side, however, at least Hillary--despite her sleaziness and thurst for power--is competent, so people will feel that the economic situation isn't completely hoepless.)