The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

Did you know that no one who is poor EVER works?

How sad that this blatant ignorance could get someone elected President. Kicking the poor when he's not gorging on Tiffany rings.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1202-gingrich-child-labor-20111202,0,439006.story

[Roman]

That man is a real piece of work. I don't know who he thinks is going to cote for him in the general with garbage like that.

[Max]

Everybody probably knows this by now, but Cain suspended his campaign today. (He did not formally drop out because--if he had done so--he would no longer be able to collect money to pay off campaign debts.) Though I doubt it will be Romney or Huntsman, Cain said that he will endorse another candidate.

Just a week or two ago, I though that Newt Gingrich getting the nomination was just a pipe dream of both the Democrats and the far-right. Now, I'm really scared shitless about this actually happening. Romney only leads in NH, while Gingrich leads in IA, SC, and FL. While I always knew that Romney would lose in IA & SC, many expected the anti-Romney forces to be fractured (leading to a different candidate winning in IA than in SC). Furthermore, FL is the one southern state where Romney could win a GOP primary, so that news is terrible for him. If Gingrich wins all three states where he currently leads, he will be the huge favorite come Super Tuesday. (His nomination will seem inevitable if he also scores an upset win in NH.)

Romney is making a huge mistake by acting like a general election candidate. (As Hillary Clinton knows, this is a dangerous strategy to use in a primary.) I often see him attacking Obama, but he seldom attacks Gingrich.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Max

[alphanguy74]

Cain should run WITH Gingrich... could you imagine their campaign theme?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wi9WlZsIok

[Max]

I love the idea of a Gingrich/Cain ticket, because it could really help erase the red state/blue state divide that Obama failed to do. Given that today's Democratic party holds in high esteem some of the most notorious womanizers of all-time--people like FDR, Clinton, and Saints Jack, Bobby, and Teddy--I would expect liberals to enthusiastically embrace such a ticket.

[DRW50]

Adultery from FDR or Jack or Bobby was not known when they were in office. Unless you're saying these men were elected because of adultery I don't see the comparison. I'm also not sure when FDR was declared one of "the most notorious womanizers of all-time."

[Max]

Carl, here's a brief summary of FDR's womanizing:

Secondly, I don't think that FDR, JFK, or RFK should be given free passes for their personal behavior just because it wasn't known at the time. It would be really refreshing if, for a change, a Democrat slammed these men for their disgusting actions.

I do concede that FDR was at least a great president. On the other hand, JFK is our most over-rated president ever (even surpassing Reagan). Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis (which might not have happened if he hadn't flubbed the Bay of Pigs up so badly), JFK does not have a single outstanding accomplishment to his credit. (Creating the Peace Corps was a noble thing to do, but hardly qualifies as one of the greatest presidential achievements.) Liberals just assign the things that the hated LBJ accomplished--such as passing the Great Society programs (with JFK called the New Frontier) and the Civil Rights Acts--while leaving LBJ with all the blame for why Vietnam went wrong. (JFK himself escalated the war in Vietnam, and tried and failed miserably to pass the landmark legislation--in a heavily Democratic Congress--that LBJ achieved.)

The over-the-top liberal worship of JFK is a mirror image of what conservatives do with Reagan. However, whereas liberals pretend "what might have been" if JFK lived (and assign the best case/pie-in-the-sky scenario to it), conservatives blatently re-write history and present a Reagan that never existed: one who never compromised, always appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court, and never gave illegal aliens amnesty.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Max

[alphanguy74]

FDR a womanizer? But he couldn't even walk. anyway... my voting doesn't hinge on somone's fildelity in their personal life. It's nice if they are good and decent and all.... but the three of us here discussing this are all men, we all know the drill. What a president is going to do or not do is what is paramount to me. There are people in this country, primarily out where I live who have gotten screwed over and over again in the pocketbook because they are dazzled by Republican candidates' stand on Abortion and gay marriage and stuff like that. for me, financial policy trumps all else when deciding what candidate to vote for.

[DRW50]

What I meant was I have never seen his name thrown around as some huge womanizer. There are all kind of politicians who, after they're gone, are found to have had affairs. I don't see how that goes to him being notoriously known for this.

I'm not sure what the point would be. If Nancy Pelosi said, "I just want to let everyone know that I think JFK was sleazy," she would be torn to pieces by most conservatives. And most conservatives would probably immediately say JFK was a far more worthy President than Obama, even though Obama has not had any affairs. So that would end up meaning that both parties love adulterous Democrats, I guess?

[Max]

Carl, if personally condemning the man is too much to ask, then I would hope that some liberals could at least remove him from sainthood and admit that he's not one of our greatest presidents ever. However, I don't expect Democratic criticism of JFK (aside from the occasional "he screwed up the Bay of Pigs, but that really was the military's fault" type of comment) any sooner than a conservative would dare say a bad thing about Saint Ronnie of Reagan.

I'm no medical expert, but when I was a student at George Washington University, I took a class that was taught by a medical doctor (who is an OB-GYN). He said that as part of their training, they indeed learn how people in wheelchairs (and with other physical disabilities) are able to have sexual intercourse.

Alphanguy, I sincerely apologize for my rudeness, but if marital fidelity is not important to you, then Gingrich's and Cain's affiars should be irrelevant. (You can be bothered by the hypocrisy involved, but the affairs themselves should not determine their fitness for office; there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy that exists as well, such as Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel not paying their taxes on time). In contrast to most Americans, fidelity is very important to me because it is a key measure of one's loyalty and trustworthiness. That's why I attack all politicans--Republican or Democrat--who engage in such behavior. (I am not an unforgiving person, and I realize that good people can make mistakes and deserve second chances. However, those who have been unfaithful for long periods of time are not deserving of any more chances.)

Edited December 5, 2011 by Max

[Max]

I apologize if this sounds heartless and offends others, but I wanted to also say something controversial in regards to JFK and Reagan: I feel that emotion is a big reason why the public at large (and not just partisans) have such favorable views of them. Because of the terrible tragedies that occurred at the end of their lives--assassination and Alzheimer's--many people are naturally more inclined to overlook their flaws and exaggerate their qualities (as is human nature). An additional reason why they remain so beloved is becuase they were such great speakers. (It's important that one mourns for both these men and their families, but nobody should let objectivity be overruled by emotion when judging their presidencies or their quality as human beings.)

This is no joke, but whenever Americans rank all the presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (listed in chronological order) almost always rate among the top six. (Clinton obviously did not suffer a personal tragedy, but is highly regarded because he's recent and because his two successors were so incompetent. I feel Clinton is also very over-rated because he failed to anticipate a second attack on the World Trade Center and because the "sizzling" economy of the 90s was largely based on accounting fraud.) The fact that John Q. Public puts JFK, Reagan, and Clinton on the same pedestal as Washington, Lincoln, and FDR is a damning indictment on the education level of our society and shows that many Americans have a complete ignorance of history.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-bain-20111204,0,343872.story

Just because of stuff like this, I would love for Willard to be the nominee.

[DRW50]

If I thought Gingrich or Cain had any plans that would help the country in any way, I might support them. I don't.

I must also say that some of Gingrich's treatment of his wives, like dumping one when she was severely ill in the hospital, goes beyond just affairs.

[Roman]

Speaks to his character. But, many on MSNBC and all on Fixed News or CNN will not bring this up. That's fine with me, because policies are this side of the 1940s anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/04/ron-paul-donald-trump-debate_n_1127975.html?ref=politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/payroll-tax-cut-extension_n_1124661.html

Once again, they tell us where they stand. Just, I don't know.

[Max]

If Huntsman can't get the nomination, I hope he runs as an independent. This idea was floated around by former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman. If the nominees are Gingrich and Obama, then it's ripe for the former governor to do this (and he is personally has the funds to do so). People just aren't going to want to settle between an incompetent president and an egomaniac.

I could care less about conservative cries that a Huntsman independent candidacy would ensure Obama's re-election, since a Gingrich nomination alone would do that. I also wonder how much of the MSNBC crowd--who currently praise the former Utah governor to the hilltops--will be willing to ditch Obama and vote for Huntsman.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Max