The Politics Thread

[Adam]

Looks like its going to be the Romney, Bachmann and Perry show from here on in.

Is it just me, or does Bachmann have this evil look to her? Her smile just seems so fake to me.

[quartermainefan]

I didn't think he had a shot in hell, but there is something wrong with the system when you are forced to bail out after a disappointing finish in a non-binding, 5000 person glorified town hall meeting in some small town in some tiny state. Iowa is not even in the top half of states population-wise, and I imagine the town of Ames must be tiny and wielding too much power per capita.

Anyway, has there ever been a more dull speaker than this guy? Even his mother would fall asleep when he talks.

[DRW50]

Amazingly enough the media spent years calling this guy charismatic and telegenic. If you ever doubted the Beltway was out of touch, this is the #1 example.

It looks like Michelle Bachmann all but bought her win - she paid for 4,000 tickets and she got about 4800 votes.

Edited August 14, 2011 by CarlD2

[quartermainefan]

She has no chance to win either. I hope she wins the nomination in a landslide though just to be crushed in the general election. Just the thought of her as President with that accent his enough to make you throw your TV out so you never have to listen to her. I can't think of which republican currently has a chance of beating Obama. They tout Rick Perry but the press forgets that outside the republican primary being a Jesus freak is not a qualification for office. The cable news anchors just need a story to fill time and for the moment settled on this guy.

[Adam]

I still think Romney is the most "electable" so hopefully reasoning trumps blind faith and he is selected. But this is the Republican Party we are talking about.....

I still think against any of them Obama gets a 2nd term, but at least with Romney I believe he'd have to fight for it.

[MichaelGL]

The funny thing is....I hope and pray Romney gets the nomination because the Tea Partiers would self destruct if that happened. It would be 2008 all over again, with the Republicans putting forth a nominee they're less enthused about. Romney getting nominated...if you thought Tea Partiers were up in arms over John Boehner and the debt deal, just wait and see if Mitt is nominated. They'll probably put forth their own nominee if that happened.

[Kylie]

I tend to policy/issue based voter. I voted for Bush. Didn't vote for Obama (not because I don't like the guy, just because I KNEW he'd end in this situation). I would have, had I been old voted for Bill Clinton. And if I had the chance probably Hillary, too. So I don't consider myself a member of any party. When I vote, if you look at my record I tend to be more fiscally, economically and in terms of things like self defense...pretty hard line Republican. Most social issues, I tend to be a pretty liberal on (however my stance on immigration is VERY Republican), abortion, same sex marriage, etc. I tend to be very much a Democrat. So I have no problem voting for whoever is the better candidate. I like Romney. I don't care what his religious views are. Religion and state SHOULD be separate. I'm interested to see where this election goes.

[Max]

In answer to Carl's earlier question, I only watched part of the debate; the part where Pawlenty and Bachmann tore into each other.

I just think that with the entrance of Perry into the race, it makes it very difficult for Bachmann to win the nomination (since the far-right vote will be split). If Palin enters, it will split this vote even more. Of course, I did not mean to suggest earlier that Romney is somehow the heavy favorite for this nomination: one should not "misunderestimate" Perry because he is very aggressive and appeals to fiscal conservatives as well.

Somebody said that there's nobody the GOP could put up who would be a surefire general election winner. This is not true, however: Jon Huntsman would handily defeat Obama. (Unfortunately, Huntsman has almost zero chance of getting the nomination since he committed the "cardinal sin" of working for Obama as his Ambassador to China.) And while Romney has a lot of flaws, he would have a reasonably likely chance of defeating Obama if the economy still sucked as badly on Election Day as it does now (and given the extraordinarily slow pace of progress, this is somewhat likely to be the case). (I disagree with Michael who states that the Tea Party will field a candidate of their own if Romney gets the nomination. As much as they hate Romney, the Tea Party hates Obama 100 times more, so they wouldn't field a third-party candidate that would guarantee Obama re-election.)

I'm sorry to see Pawlenty drop out of the race, although it is no surprise since his candidacy has been dead for quite some time. In a general election, I think he would have been a stronger candidate than Romney. That's because Pawlenty has the "Minnesota nice" narrative going for him, whereas Romney can easily be portrayed as a wealthy, Massachusetts elitist who is "unlikeable." Hence, Romney can easily be portrayed as the Republican version of John Kerry. In fact, I've already read an article that stated in the event Romney does win the nomination, Obama's 2012 re-election strategy will be patterned after the one Bush used in 2004: this strategy calls for completely ignoring Bush's/Obama's (lack of) accomplishments during the first term, but instead painting Kerry/Romney as out-of-touch elitists who aren't anywhere near as "likeable" as Bush/Obama. (Yet, because the economy was much better at this point in time eight years ago--and because Bush still narrowly won even with this strategy--this strategy will not guarantee an Obama victory. It is, however, the only feasible strategy that Obama has at his disposal given how bad the economy is.)

Edited August 14, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

There is something so phony about Romney, I don't think he has a chance of getting elected. Nobody buys his act, from his gun rights cred of "shooting varmints" once in his life, to his nauseating flip flopping on freedom of choice that is documented, to his torturous attempts at attacking Obamacare while defending Romneycare..he is a hack, a charlatan, and I think everyone sees this. That's why he couldn't even beat John McCain last time, and that's why he is destined for failure this time. Nobody likes a guy who is so blatant in changing his opinion on a dime to accommodate whoever he happens to be talking to at the moment, and his stance that corporations are people too and need our sympathy while they horde hundreds of billions as the flesh and blood people can't find jobs will come back to haunt him.

[Toups]

Warren Buffett: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

ITA with him.

Wow. Only 17.4 percent????

[Max]

Warren Buffett makes a valid point, which I agree with as well. However, to suggest that the GOP is solely responsible for this is absurd. That's because during the two years the Democrats controlled the presidency, House, and Senate, they chose not to raise the capital gains tax rate (and make the rich pay their "fair share.") And since Buffet is an ally of Obama, it is no surprise that he chose not to criticize the president or his friends in Congress.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

You leave out one very important part. The democrats did not control the needed 60 seats in the senate, and republicans wouldn't even let the bush tax cuts expire. Do you really think they would have voted to raise taxes? Obama can't even get half his appointees filled, he is going to convince ten republican senators to go along with a tax increase?

Edited August 15, 2011 by quartermainefan

[Max]

Qfan, for a period of time that lasted almost a year, the Democrats did have 60 seats in the Senate (after Arlen Specter switched parties but before Scott Brown was sworn into office). Yet, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi still chose not to increase the capital gains tax but instead focused all their efforts on passing Obamacare.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

and you are not factoring in the blue dog democrats from conservative states like uber-democrat Ben Nelson. I wonder what his master, Grover Norquist, would say if he decided to raise taxes.

[Max]

Ben Nelson is hardly an uber-conservative who is beholden to Grover Norquist, given that he completely caved in to Obama and Reid and provided the 60th and decisive vote for Obamacare in the Senate. And, if it wasn't for Democrats from red states, there's absolutely no way the Democrats would have ever had 60 senators in the first place. As much as liberals don't like to accept this reality, it is impossible to elect a Democrat in a statewide race (in a red state) who is as liberal as Edward Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. (Simarly, as much as Tea Partiers don't want to hear it, Republicans as conservative as Jesse Helms or Jim DeMint can only be elected statewide in the reddest of states.)

And although Buffett is right about the need to raise the capital gains tax, he has hardly been infallible over the years, as evidenced by his strong support of both Obama and Schwarzenegger.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Max