The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

You have to laugh...or you would if this man wasn't so close to becoming President. The outrage over a reporter asking a question.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-aide-curses-at-press-in-poland?ref=fpb

[Soapsuds]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/12129/harry-reid-claims-mitt-romney-paid-no-taxes-for-ten-years-now-romney-must-release-returns

[DRW50]

The far right gets another token, which they will probably need, given Marco Rubio struggling to live up to all the breathless hype.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ted-cruz-wins-republican-runoff-for-texas-senate-seat/2012/07/31/gJQADsLtNX_blog.html

[DRW50]

What incredible hypocrisy. The big new conservative darling has scooped up tons and tons of money from a pro-gay donor. How many of these true believers actually practice what they preach?

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/ted-cruzs-gay-billionaire-donor-draws-criticism/

[DRW50]

More cheap 9/11 and Pearl Harbor comparisons, and this man seems very proud of it.

http://tpmdc.talking...?ref=fpnewsfeed

Edited August 1, 2012 by CarlD2

[Max]

The vile and disgusting words out of Karger's mouth are beyond reprehensible. In addition to assuming that much of the money given to the Mormon Church funds "antigay activities," he is a hypocrite of the highest order. Given his "expertise" on Mormonism, and how convinced he his "that a member's obedience to the LDS Church supersedes loyalty to family and country," why doesn't he DEMAND Harry Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader? After all, doesn't he belong to a "homophobic" organization as well? (And isn't he funding "antigay activities" when he gives 10% of his income to the church?)

[Max]

There is one other thing I wanted to say about Karger's belief regarding "a member's obedience to the LDS Church supersedes loyalty to family and country": it is exactly the same sort of bigoted garbage that Al Smith and JFK had to deal with when they were running for president. Back then, of course, the charge was that their supreme loyalties would be to the Pope. Given that Karger is himself a member of a group that suffers terrible discrimination, it is shocking that he could say things that fuel hatred towards other minorites.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

And JFK denied that his religion would shape his views. I'm not sure if Romney has. Considering previous stories like Romney, in his capacity with LDS, shaming and guilting a woman who needed to have an abortion or she would die, I think this is a valid concern.

[Max]

Well, Romney already addressed such concerns during his first run for the presidency with his "Faith in America" speech. According to Wikipedia:

Romney has no obligation to address the issue again, and doing so wouldn't satisfy bigots like Karger, anyway. He and like-minded people are convinced that it is dangerous for all Mormons (save Harry Reid) to hold public office because they will just blindly follow the "anti-gay" instructions of church leaders.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

His word doesn't mean a thing as far as I can tell because he's wishy washy. I don't see him as a man of conviction but I don't think his religion is a factor because ultimately money is his God. I love a number of pop songs about money including Michael Jackson's but no matter what people want to pretend, money and Christianity do not go hand in hand. Mitt Romney should not have any issue at all with paying whatever taxes are required of him if he's a devout Christian and he should know that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven.

He may have pulled over and wept when he heard that his church was ending discrimination but the fact that he was content to attend a church that denied the priesthood to persons of African descent says a lot about him. But let's just celebrate the fact that Clint Eastwoond endorsed him. That ought to put him way over the top now.

It's sad to me that the choice is between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The latter is the better option in terms of international relations hands down. i'm not good with the domestic pandering. One segment of his speech last week to the Urban League reminded me of Billy Cosby's 2004 speech. Many books were written condemning Mr. Cosby. So far I've only seen one unhappy camper express her disappointment with it. So he created some useless African-American education initiative because what's going to help the kids is another group of adults sitting around talking about the problem. At least Bill Cosby suggested Hooked on Phonics. Teaching little kids that "they" is not a pronoun shoudln't be that hard but in America it is and in America we can pretend that it's some special language and mediocrity is a condition suffered by the only poor people in America because poverty is race conscious.

On a lighter note, the strip clubs are ready for the Republicans and the "coffee" memo has been sent.

[Max]

I really don't feel like arguing about this, but if anybody dared to suggest that it said a lot about Obama that he was content to attend the hateful Wright's church for 20 years, he would immediately be called a racist. If there are going to be attacks about one's religion, there should be consistency: it can't be unacceptable to attack one candidate's religion while OK to attack the other's. (Wales, I apologize if you felt I suggested that you were responsible for this double standard; however, I have seen other Obama supporters be hypocritical on this matter.)

I hope you don't mind me asking this, but given your reservations about the Mormon Church, do you believe that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should give up his very powerful leadership position (to another Democrat)? (It is alright if you do not want to answer this.)

This hasn't been discussed much, but do you folks have any opinions regarding the battle for Congress? Political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia is the best in the business, and he ranks each of the Senate races as follows:

Safe Democratic:

CA: Dianne Feinstein

DE: Tom Carper

MD: Ben Cardin

MN: Amy Klobuchar

NY: Kirsten Gillibrand

RI: Sheldon Whitehouse

VT: Bernie Sanders (an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats)

WA: Maria Cantwell

WV: Joe Manchin

Safe Republican:

MS: Roger Wicker

TN: Bob Corker

TX: Ted Cruz (Kay Bailey Hutchison is retiring)

UT: Orrin Hatch

WY: John Barrasso

Likely Democratic:

CT: Democratic Primary Winner (Ind. Dem. Joe Lieberman is retiring)

ME: Angus King (Rep. Olympia Snowe is retiring; King is an independent who will caucus with the Dems.)

MI: Debbie Stabenow

NJ: Bob Menendez

PA: Bob Casey, Jr.

Likely Republican:

NE: Deb Fischer (Dem. Ben Nelson is retiring)

Leans Democratic:

HI: Dem. Primary Winner vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Dem. Dainel Akaka is retiring)

NM: Dem. Martin Heinrich vs. Rep. Heather Wilson (Dem. Jeff Bingaman is retiring)

OH: Incumbent Dem. Sherrod Brown vs. Rep. Josh Mandel

Leans Republican:

AZ: Dem. Primary Winner vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Rep. John Kyl is retiring)

IN: Dem. Joe Donnelly vs. Rep. Richard Mourdock (Rep. Richard Lugar was defeated in the primary)

ND: Dem. Heidi Heitkamp vs. Rep. Rick Berg (Dem. Kent Conrad is retiring)

NV: Dem. Shelley Berkley vs. Incumbent Rep. Dean Heller

Toss-Up:

FL: Incumbent Dem. Bill Nelson vs. Rep. Primary Winner

MA: Dem. Elizabeth Warren vs. Incumbent Rep. Scott Brown

MO: Incumbent Dem. Claire McCaskill vs. Rep. Primary Winner

MT: Incumbent Dem. Jon Tester vs. Rep. Danny Rehberg

VA: Dem. Tim Kaine vs. Rep. George Allen (Dem. Jim Webb is retiring)

WI: Dem. Tammy Baldwin vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Dem. Herb Kohl is retiring)

If every party wins what is classified as likely, leaning, or safe, they would each have a minimum of 47 seats (and would therefore need to win at least four of the toss-up races to have a majority). Based on where things stand at the moment, here are my comments on the six toss-up races:

*FL - I suspect that this race will have a similar outcome to that state's presidential election. Most of the state polls (excluding the Quinnipiac poll, which seems to be an outlier) currently have Obama up by 1 to 2 points in FL, so I am guessing that this is will be Nelson's margin of victory as well.

*MA - Despite my belief that Brown is running a superior campaign to Warren, I don't believe any GOP candidate can win a statewide election in MA during a presidential election year. After winning by a couple of points (as Obama wins the state by about 20 points), Warren will be touted by the far left as a superhero and a 2016 presidential campaign will be endlessly hyped up.

*MO - I'm pretty sure that McCaskill is done for. Perhaps she has a chance if the GOP goes Tea Party in the primary, but (even then) I still see her losing.

*MT - Tester is every bit as endangered as McCaskill. (He mainly won because he was running against a highly unpopular incumbent in 2006.) Furthermore, Rehberg is the strongest GOP candidate the party could have nominated, as he has been elected to statewide office many times. (Rehberg represents MT in the House, but due to MT's low population, all of the state is just one Congressionanl District.)

*VA - I expect Kaine to pull this out, as Allen was one of the worst candidates the Republicans could have nominated. Given that Sabato himself said that he has yet to meet a single Obama/Allen swing-voter, it is beyond strange that Allen is doing better in the VA polls than Romney is. The only realistic explanation for this is that evangelicals are planning to enthuisastically vote for Allen while choosing to not vote for anyone for president.

*WI - I am guessing that the GOP will win the seat if former Governor Tommy Thompson gets the nomination. Otherwise, they will lose it.

In summary, I think that the Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining control of the Senate. The chances of this happening are about the same as Romney getting elected president: between 30 and 35 percent.

Given that the presidency and the Senate seem dismal for the GOP, their one bit of good news is that it is a near-certain bet that they will maintain control of the House (with 218 seats needed for a majority). Sabato has made the following breakdowns:

Safe Republican: 195

Likely Republican: 15

Leans Republican: 23

Toss-Up: 16

Leans Democratic: 20

Likely Democratic: 10

Safe Democratic: 156

Given Sabato's non-partisan analysis, if the Republicans win all the safe/likely/leans races, they will have 233 seats. And if the Democrats--in their best case scenario--win all the toss-up seats along with all the safe/likely/leans races, they will have 202 seats.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Max

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/obama-racism-super-pac-web-ad_n_1739800.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

I hope the party continues to let this garbage spew.

[Wales2004]

I keep getting distracted so I hope my response makes sense.

I try not to employ double standards and when I do I will usually admit to it upfront but feel free to point it out to me if I do. One of the unfortunate consequences of America and race is that when b/w people are involved in anything deemed a controversy, people tend to reach for race as the reason. This is a major reason why the nation seems to have taken a step backwards on the issue--another being there is no incentive to progress because race is a highly profitable business for some (e.g, Al Sharpton, Pat Buchanan, Michael Eric Dyson, Rush Limbaugh) and it's politically beneficial to certain Republicans appealing to "real Americans." So yes, if you say something perceived as negative about Barack Obama then you'll either be labeled a racist or a sell-out.

My opinions of the candidates as it pertains to Christianity or their choice of a religion has nothing at all to do with whether or not I think they ought to hold a political office. Christianity and politics are two separate things as far as I am concerned. If they bring Christianity up then I will more than likely formulate an opinion on whatever they say.

I don't see the snippet of what Jeremiah Wright said as comparable to a church's actual doctrine. If you tell me that the church had a racially discrimiatory policy then I would agree but Jeremiah Wright is clearly not the church. Furthermore, I haven't heard 20 years of his sermons so I have no idea about what he was preaching during Barack Obama's 20 years there. But there is somewhat of a line between racialism (of which I am certain he is guilty) and racism. That said, I don't see Barack Obama in any better light than Mitt Romney when it comes to his professed Christianity either.

Just because I wouldn't join the Mormon Church doesn't mean that I don't credit them with moving forward. I don't exclude Mitt Romney from being a viable candidate on the basis of his relgion (my issues with him are not about his being a Mormon it begun with his attitude towards the poor) so I won't do the same to Harry Reid. I don't know enough about him to have a real opinion on his leadership skills but he seems weak offhand. I do take issue with the Democrats for hypocritically allowing him to skate on that racialist statement he made about Barack Obama being able to communicate in the negro dialect. But that's a tricky one because I know there are black people who agree with him.

[Wales2004]

I saw that piece yesterday but I didn't waste my time watching that rubbish. I thought it was a tad bit funny that they want to take self-hatred to a whole other level. The other slightly humorous piece is the attempt to link Barack Obama to slavery through his mother. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible for his mother to have any black ancestors but the original slave seems like a real stretch to me.

[Max]

Wales, you deserve a lot of credit for saying these things.