The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

Rick Perry feels that Ben Bernanke is "almost treasonous." This is very clever. The more that the "liberal" media spins this, the less people know that Rick Perry wants Texas to secede.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/perry-calls-bernanke-policies-almost-treasonous.php?ref=fpa

[Max]

Even though Perry would probably make a bad general election candidate, I honestly am not 100% certain about this. Objectively speaking, there are a couple of reasons why Perry could actually be the GOP candidate (aside from Hunstman, who has no chance of getting the nomination) with the highest likelihood of defeating Obama:

*Perry has the whole "I'm responsible for the good economy in Texas" narrative going for him. Now, of course, the Democrats are strongly questioning just how "good" the economy in Texas is (and just how much of Texas' economic fortune was Perry's doing); however, no matter how aggressively the Democrats attack Perry on this matter, it is unlikely that it will change the perception that Texas' economy is much better than the country's economy as a whole.

*The fact that Perry wears his religion on his sleeve is actually a positive (and not a negative) with many voters in the heartland. For whatever reason, voters in the South and much of the Midwest can really "relate" whenever a candidate for president does this. (Being open about faith really helped Carter, Clinton, and Bush in their presidential campaigns.)

*Obama cannot paint Perry as a phony, elitist flip-flopper (which is how he would run against Romney).

*While Perry's past stupid behavior (like wanting Texas to secede and praying that the economy gets better) may be quite damaging, I strongly doubt that swing voters will care about those things to the extent they care about the terrible economy. Really, the major flaw that Perry has in a general election is that he is governor of Texas; this will allow Obama and the Democrats to try and paint Perry as a clone of Bush (just like Bush and the Republicans painted John Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal in the mold of Michael Dukakis).

Edited August 16, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=7XR3WG1B6WZ67PTZ&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

This is pretty funny, but sad in a way. It must be frustrating to be Ron Paul at times.

[DRW50]

Perry has said we should leave the economy "up to God." What does that mean? And since he said that we should go "ugly" on Ben Bernanke, does that mean he expected Bernanke to be turned into a pillar of salt?

[DRW50]

It looks like we're going to gut retirement plans for the military.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/15/eveningnews/main20092652.shtml

I wonder if those who spent years talking about those who "hate the troops," will have a word to say about this? Or if it's OK because it doesn't raise taxes?

[DRW50]

It looks like the "Texas miracle" is based on government jobs and stimulus money that the GOP rails against.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/chart-of-the-day-government-jobs-led-to-perrys-economic-boom.php?ref=fpb

[quartermainefan]

There has been a lot of looking into Texas' miracle. From everything I have read, private sector jobs are down but government jobs are way up. And while it is true Texas has fared better than most everywhere else, a lot of that stems from their unique oil economy. So while the rest of the world suffers with $100/barrel oil, for Texas this is manna from heaven and boosts their economy. That's fair I guess, but that is not something any Governor has control over.

[Max]

I just saw one of the strangest interviews ever on television: the interview Piers Morgan conducted with Christine O'Donnell. When Morgan started to ask O'Donnell questions about her position on gay marriage, O'Donnell got very testy, refused to reply, and called Morgan rude. O'Donnell then ended the interview.

Regardless of one's political viewpoint, I think we can all agree that viewing a political train-wreck "live" feels totally different than (getting your first experience of that event by) watching clips of it on television. The only other train-wreck that I watched "live" was Howard Dean's infamous "I Have a Scream" speech, which he made after finishing a distant third place in the 2004 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

I honestly don't know why O'Donnell was so defensive about the questions regarding gay marriage. It's not like her views of the topic are unknown, or that her supporters would leave her if she stated her true feelings about the subject.

One more thing about O'Donnell is that Democrats should be ever grateful for her existence, because if she didn't run for the Senate in 2010, the GOP would have nominated liberal Republican Representative Mike Castle (a popular former governor) instead, who in turn would have easily won the general election. (The Democrats were so convinced that Castle was a shoo-in for the seat that even Beau Biden decided not to run for the Senate.)

Edited August 18, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

I don't understand why she is even on talk shows, why they care. She was an also ran of an also ran.

Meanwhile, one of the more interesting defenses for going to a strip club - he had to use the bathroom.

http://www.stltoday.com/article_1ade6260-c8fd-11e0-b53f-001a4bcf6878.html

[Adam]

I am surprised Christine didn't put a spell on Piers. I had meant to watch that interview, sorry I missed it. I agree with Carl though, why is she getting press now? Seems odd. Did she write a book or something?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Adam

[DRW50]

She did write a book. The real question is why the always sycophantic news media has to cover this. Anyone can "write" a book.

[Max]

The entrance of Perry into the race is really devastating to Bachmann. The major reason why her campaing first caught on like wildfire is that social conservatives and Tea Partiers despised Romney, and previously had nobody else to turn to. Since Perry is perfectly acceptable to the conservative wing of the GOP, many Bachmann supporters will now abandon ship because they know she would get crushed a general election. (If Perry never entered the race, many on the far-right still would have supported Bachmann--despite knowing she is unelectable--just because they hate Romney so much.)

Barring some sort of miracle that would make Huntsman's poll numbers rise above 1%, it can be assumed that the Republican nominee will be either Perry or Romney. (Personally, I predict Perry will be the nominee.) Despite the crappy economy and Obama's ever sinking approval rating (I believe one Gallup poll had his approval at less than 40%), the unfortunate truth is that both Perry and Romney make great foils for Obama to run against. Obama's 2012 re-election strategy will mirror that of Bush's in 2004: keep the focus off his own record, present himself as a "likeable" guy who is trying his best, and make his opponent out to be the greater of two evils. (Interesting to note that these re-election strategies are completely different from the initial "compassionate conservative"/"hope and change" messages these candidates ran on in order to win their first terms.)

As previously stated, Perry is a great foil for Obama, because all the president has to do is (1) tie him and Bush "together at the hip," (2) portray him as too far to the right, and (3) put some commercials together that show Perry making stupid comments. Romney is a great foil as well, because he can be portrayed as an elitist, flip-flopper who is a tool of the corporations.

Obama has always been extremely lucky throughout the course of his political career. (As an example, witness back in early September 2008, when he and McCain had been virtually tied in the polls for months; after the stock market collapse later that month, the outcome of the election was never in doubt.) And, he got extremely lucky that the two strongest GOP contenders (who could have actually won the nomination)--Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie--opted not to run in 2012 (either would have handily defeated him). (Similarly, Bush recieved a huge break when both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton chose not to enter the 2004 presidential race; either one would have handily defeated him in a general election.)

Barring any unforeseen circumstances (such as a big change in the unemployment rate or a major political scandal), I feel like I can predict right now that Obama will defeat either Perry or Romney. Of course, I would expect that Obama's margin of victory will be considerably less than it was in 2008: for starters, it's a pretty safe bet that either prospective GOP nominee will win IN and NC (red states Obama carried by 1.0% and 0.3%, respectively), along with the 22 states McCain won. Also, Perry or Romney could also end up snatching FL, OH, and/or VA from Obama. But even if Obama loses all three of those swing states, he will still be slightly over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The bottom line here is that both Perry and Romney have too many liabilties when going up against Obama (who--despite being a terrible president--is a master politican whose campaign skills are equal to those of Reagan and Clinton).

Edited August 19, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

Unsurprisingly, Rick Perry has leap-frogged ahead of everyone else in the GOP field, including media darling Mitt Romney. Romney was only going to have a real chance if no one else palatable was in the field.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/perry-takes-the-lead-for-gop-nomination-in-two-national-polls.php?ref=fpa

I can't get into "This is bad for Republicans" because honestly I think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney does. Perry is channeling so much of the ugliness in this country right now.

[DRW50]

Another media darling tells us that Social Security and Medicare were horrible for America.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rubios-reagan-speech-entitlements-weakened-us.php?ref=fpblg

This is the true heart of the GOP - gut anything that does not help the rich. And many will go right along...

[quartermainefan]

on aug 7th in this very topic I said

don't listen to a single word of bullshit in this thread about so-called "mainstream" republicans or how they want what is best for the country. Republicans want to destroy social security and all the money should be horded by the top. That is the way they have always been, and that is the way they always will be. If FDR could be brought back he would tell you the same thing. Any word to the contrary is subterfuge, deciept and an attempt to make you think modern republicanism is something other than a cult that worships money fueled by distrust of anyone who isn't some fundie hatemonger out to attack the gays and blacks. And soon I imagine someone will come along and tell me my comment is beyond the pale, and yet incapable of offering up a single name of any republican politician anywhere who does not subscribe to "trickle down" (read: piss on) economics.