The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

The media will likely spin this as Democrats being unfair and Democrats not wanting to shrink government, even though I don't really believe that shrinking government has ever been a priority to most people, and this "small government" stuff has just helped choke the life out of the economy.

Obstruction benefits Republicans because most of their party will support them, while Democrats are more likely to blame their own party and not show up at the polls.

Add in the many on the far right who likely want the government to collapse and think this will bring America to a new paradise where all the lazy and worthless will be punished and the hard working Richie Richs will be rewarded, and Republicans have no incentive to do anything but watch Rome burn.

[Roman]

Well, Newt is getting his backside climbed up into with a razor right now.

[Roman]

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street

Some serious dirty pool.

[DRW50]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/opinion/lessig-gingrich-change-washington/

[Roman]

Newt is such a twit.

[DRW50]

What a joke. No one cares about helping the economy. All they want to do is yell TAX CUT! and point fingers at the other side. The Republicans know that the worse things get the better off they are, and the Democrats just seem inept and beholden. What an embarrassment this is. And as always it's the poor and the middle class who will pay for this, all while being told how greedy and worthless they are.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/21/politics/super-committee/?hpt=hp_t1

[DRW50]

Gingrich wants to gut child labor laws.

http://www.washingto...ref=NetworkNews

Edited November 21, 2011 by CarlD2

[Max]

What I don't understand is why Congress is the only party responsible, while Obama (according to Martin Sheen) remains "the only adult in the room." If memory serves me correctly, Obama was a huge proponent for having this super-committee exist in the first place. Of course, this committee was soon filled with highly partisan members, so everybody knew it would fail.

Why does Obama usually follow and seldom lead? Rather than implementing policies of his own, he usually can't wait to form a committee whose in charge of solving the nation's pressing problems. And what really gets me is that in the few cases when his committees give good recommendations (such as the acclaimed Bowles-Simpson committee), the president doesn't even bother following through on many of them.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

Nothing is going to go through Congress, unless it's cuts and more cuts. That's why Obama doesn't matter. He's just there.

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/20/joe-walsh-veterans-in-occ_n_1104421.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics

That man is part and parcel of what that party is right now. Just, sad.

[DRW50]

Newt is so compassionate to immigrants. Let's keep them together...until we can force them into child labor of course.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69011.html

[Max]

Cain is "reassessing" his candidacy 24 hours after allegations came out that he had a 13 year affair with another woman. If he does drop out, it would not be good news for Romney.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that Gingrich will emerge as the anti-Romney candidate, given his past association with Fannie and Freddie, as well as his positions on illegal immigration. (Perry's stances on immigration will also prevent him from emerging as the conservative alternative to Romney.) I predict that the actual anti-Romney that will emerge can only be somebody who passes the Tea Party Purity Test; assuming that Cain drops out, this only leaves Bachmann and Santorum. (Because Bachmann has made so many blunders, there's just no way one should count Santorum out, despite his current showing in the polls.)

It was a huge blow to Huntsman for the largest NH newspaper to endorse Gingrich. (Huntsman really needed a prominent endorsement to push him over the top in NH.) While I continue to support the former Utah governor, I believe that he should drop out of the race if he doesn't either win in NH or come in a very close second. (Right now, Huntsman is spending just about all of his resources in the Granite State.) Otherwise, his continued presence in the race will just take votes away from Romney and make it more likely for a fringe candidate to get the nomination.

In hindsight, Pawlenty made a huge mistake by dropping out of the race in August (even though almost everyone thought it was a good idea at the time). The conservative wing of the party is looking for any alternative to Romney, and Pawlenty was the second choice for many Republicans. (He was my second choice as well, and thus Pawlenty could have also drawn support from more mainstream Republicans who are also looking for an alternative to Romney.) Pawlenty would have also been a stronger candidate against Obama in a general election than Romney will be.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

I don't think T-Paw would have been a strong candidate. He had the media, and the media loved him, but he was uncharismatic, he's an extremist on social issues without any of the charisma to balance that out, he left Minnesota in a bad fiscal place, he raised taxes (even if he didn't call them taxes), and he was just gutless. There would be a movement to bring him back in if he had been that strong.

I'm not surprised about the Gingrich endorsement over Huntsman. Huntsman is a moderate. NH conservatives don't even want college students to vote, and they care more about repealing gay marriage laws than any real problems. They would love Gingrich, who panders his way to the right every time it suits him.

[Max]

Perhaps that was a conservative paper that endorsed Gingrich over Huntsman or Romney. (I honestly don't know, though that would explain the endorsement.) Gingrich often panders to the right, but not always: such as the time in the debate when he refused to deport illegal immigrants who had been in the United States at least 25 years.

I didn't mean to suggest that he'd be a strong candidate (sorry if I gave that impression), just that he would have been stronger than Romney (who flip-flops on every issue imaginable). Pawlenty is conservative on quite a few social issues, but he looks moderate in comparison to Bachmann and Santorum. Furthermore, I think that it is a stretch to say that the media loves him, though they did advance the "Minnesota nice" narrative quite a bit. (IMO, the media "loves" very few politicans. They did "love" Obama four years ago when they presented him as the man who would bridge the red state/blue state divide and as the individual who would put an end to politics as usual.)

[DaytimeFan]

You gotta love Gloria Allred, she can take down a presidential candidate with a single press conference featuring some blubbering blond. Now, if only she'd finally do something about that jawline of hers...