The Politics Thread

[quartermainefan]

I think he made a mistake. He should have let them make this their big issue for two years, then in 2012 release it and say "next?" and leave his opponent looking the fool.

[Greg's GL]

I'm speechless.

I've been away from this site and particularly this thread for too long so I'm just gonna jump right in. The fact of the matter is if President Obama were not African-American, this birth certificate bullshit would have never been an issue. Period. I think the entire thing is rooted in racism and the fact it's still an issue after they've gotten what they wanted makes me believe it even more.

I will say that I find it hard to believe that these people are respresentive of the run-of-the-mill Republican. I have some Republican friends, some on this very forum, and they are nowhere near as extreme as the people in this clip.

If the GOP continues to chase after these "morality" issues, they will not get the support of the general public in 2012. It's a good thing that the mainstream press has not picked up on this story.

Only the fringe, evangelical Christians are interested in these types of actions.

[DRW50]

Tonight was the South Carolina GOP debate - most of the big names skipped it.

Media darling "T-Paw" was there, someone the press has been hyping relentlessly for years now, even though he only won as governor of Minnesota because of a third party, even though he has changed his position on so many issues, even though he panders so blatantly that he was a foot soldier for the likes of Michelle Bachmann when she was in MN politics, and even though he has the charisma of a tree stump.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54434.html

Edited May 6, 2011 by CarlD2

[quartermainefan]

Hair today, gone tomorrow.

The Donald has decided to not run for President. What a shock.

[DRW50]

And this man is considered one of the greatest GOP intellectuals?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/14/us_gingrich_1/index.html

[MichaelGL]

I am so sick of this "end of the world" nonsense from some on the right. My goodness, you would think America was the equivalent of Haiti or Somalia from what some on on the right are saying. The truth is, America is still what it was some 15-20 years ago, perhaps even better. People in third world countries still long to live here and still risk their very lives to come here. However we the American people are supposed to believe that the country is all of sudden at risk of becoming or already is a police state? The day when I'm not allowed to step outside my front door and freely decide what to do with my life, is the day when the right is justified in using such drastic phrases as "teetering on the abyss" and whatnot. Just because the man that occupies the white house has a different set of beliefs policy-wise than you do, does not mean it's the end of times.

And you know what? Newt is one those most guilty of painting this picture.

Don't get me started on the food stamp issue, on one hand the right touts the unemployment numbers as a weapon against the president, and in the other they're cutting services for those who are unemployed. Can they pick which issue to spin? Either there are a large number of people suffering right now that need help from the GOVERNMENT, or the economy is getting better, and help from the GOVERNMENT is no longer needed. Pick one and stick with it for Christ sake!

End of rant.

Edited May 16, 2011 by MichaelGL

[Max]

MichaelGL, I always enjoy discussing politics with you, but I disagree (at least partially) on your assessment that America is the same (or better off) than it was 15-20 years ago. True, on the social issues, we have made great strides; however, the economic/job opportunities available to many Americans are far bleaker now than they were back then. (And, while government help to the unemployed is needed, government is not the only solution to this problem; unless we are to impose a massive tax increase on Americans of all income levels, government funding for every type of assistance needs to be cut in order for us to balance the budget.)

You're absolutely right in criticizing Newt Gingrich; I personally believe that (when it comes to being a human being) he is a piece of s#it. However, those on the right are not the only ones guilty of claiming that America is doomed to failure as the result of having a president who belonged to the opposite party: back when Bush was president, many liberals constantly bemoned that the U.S. was going to hell in a handbasket. Of course, under both Presidents Bush and Obama, the U.S. still remained the envy of the world, and (as you stated) many others risked their lives in order to come here. It's unfortunate that there are partisans who will exploit a situation and paint an inaccurate picture of the state of America, but that is called politics.

I'm not surprised in the least that Donald Trump decided not to run for president, as I always believed that this was just a big ploy for publicity on his part. (Back in 2000, he made a very similar flirtation about running for president, only then as an independent.) Also, Trump would have never have won the Republican nomination due to being strongly pro-choice and anti-war in the past, as well as his having been a public supporter of the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. (Trump flip-flopped so much during the last few months that he makes Mitt Romney look principled by comparison.)

A much bigger piece of political news came on Saturday, when Mike Huckabee announced that he would not run for president. Although it was rumored for quite some time that Huckabee would not run in 2012, this news was still somewhat surprising given that Huckabee was the front-runner in many Republican polls. Personally, I am devastated by this news, since I feel that Huckabee was by far the strongest possible contender the GOP could nominate against Obama: that's because even if one doesn't agree with his very conservative views, Huckabee has a charismatic personality that results in his being liked by just about everybody. (Well, technically Huckabee is not the strongest possible contender the GOP could have nominated; that distinction belongs to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. However, there's about a zero chance that Christie will run in 2012.) Obviously, my conclusion is that Huckabee chose not to run because he felt that he would have likely lost to Obama (and, in the process, would have been forced to give up his job as talk show host on Fox News).

Now that Huckabee has decided not to run, I feel that the only potential Republican candidate with any chance against Obama is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Honestly, I don't know much about him, aside from the facts that he is a mainstream conservative who happens to be very popular in a state that Obama managed to narrowly carry in 2008. (Obama's victory in Indiana was a major upset, since he was the first Democrat since 1964 to win that state.) Aside from Daniels (who has not announced his intentions), the rest of the Republican field looks so dreadful that I can't help but think that Obama will win in a cakewalk next year. (The tragic part about this is that--at least on paper--Obama looks very beatable due to the terrible economy and job market. But, not even that will matter to swing voters if the Republicans nominate a crappy candidate.)

Edited May 17, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

Daniels is very unpopular with social conservatives. He tried to mollify that recently by banning funding for Planned Parenthood in Indiana, but I still don't think they will accept him unless they have no choice. He made the mistake of suggesting that there should be a "truce" between social conservatives and those in the party who don't care about social issues. This led to broadsides by Huckabee and others about how unacceptable this idea was.

I think that the awful "T-Paw," who has been hyped by the press for years and who blatantly panders to the religious right (he said his biggest regret as a state legislator was voting for a gay rights bill) and to other far right wings of the party (his backtracking on global warming, his refusal to call anything he did in Minnesota a "tax" even though it ended up costing people more than taxes probably would have). He's also not Daniels or Romney, which makes him appealing to many in the party.

The Democrats are always so weak and lack a message. The Republicans have a message they stick to at election time, but then when they are governing, it's about abortion, it's about race-baiting, banning gay marriage, blocking repeal of DADT, gutting Medicare and Social Security, giving more money to the rich, etc.

If the Republicans find anyone who is not a disaster then I think they will win. Even if Obama does win I think it will end up being like Clinton's last term (not the sex scandal, but being a hobbled pariah).

Edited May 17, 2011 by CarlD2

[MichaelGL]

Max, what do you think about Romney? Polls show him in a lead against the remaining known possible candidates, and Romney, to the ignorance of the media, is making campaign moves and stops. If Daniels doesn't run, I can see Romney easily capturing the nomination. However there appears to a lack of excitement where he's concerned, so far.

Then there's Hermain Cain who I'm constantly hearing about from other conservatives. So far he seems like a long shot at capturing the nomination, but who knows, stranger things have been known to happen.

Edited May 17, 2011 by MichaelGL

[DRW50]

If you're GLBT or you know anyone who is, then you should know this about Wisconsin. The governor and the attorney general are working hard to make sure that same-sex couples - any unmarried couples, probably - will not be able to have hospital visitation rights.

http://www.jsonline.mobi/news/statepolitics/121956273.html

Edited May 18, 2011 by CarlD2

[Max]

MichaelGL, I just don't see Romney winning the GOP nomination due to (1) his long history of flip-flopping on social issues and health care and (2) anti-Mormon prejudice (which means that he'll likely never win a primary in a southern state). Outside of the Mormon community and individuals who make over $100,000 (and support among both of these groups is not nearly enough to win the nomination), Romney just doesn't appeal to a whole lot of people. One thing that has always puzzled me about Romney was his decision to move to Massachusetts and establish a political career there: if he had just stayed in Utah and ran for that state's governorship, he wouldn't have had to take issue stances that were so outside the GOP mainstream (that were necessary to take in order to win a statewide election in Massachusetts), and therefore would not need to be currently doing all this flip-flopping.

Prior to last week's debate, I had never even heard of Herman Cain. Although he has an interesting personal story, I don't see him lasting very long in the race. (I'm guessing he'll drop out well before the Iowa caucuses.)

In my last post I had said that Daniels is the only potential Republican candidate who has a chance of beating Obama in a general election (now that Huckabee is not running). I'd actually like to now revise this statement, because I had forgotten (back when I wrote that post) about another potential candidate: former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would also have a reasonable chance of defeating Obama. Huntsman would be an attractive nominee not only because he is a moderate, but also because he served as Ambassador to China. (The foreign policy expertise that Huntsman has would help to negate the advantage Obama now has in that area as a result of Bin Laden's killing.) Unfortunately, I feel that Huntsman has almost no chance at winning the nomination precisely because he is a moderate and because he served as Ambassador to China under Obama. (In addition, he would have to deal with the same issue of anti-Mormon prejudice that Romney is facing.)

[DRW50]

This ad is like a bad parody.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0511/Most_depressing_ad_ever.html#

[MichaelGL]

So Republicans are attacking Obama on his policy on Israel, to have it return to its pre-1967 borders, but today it has come out that around 2003, George W. Bush supported the very same policy

Thanks Max for you views on the GOP candidates, you have a point that Romney really doesn't appeal to a whole bunch of people within the Republican party.

Edited May 20, 2011 by MichaelGL

[DRW50]

Mitch Daniels isn't running. Given how the base hates him I guess it makes sense.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKqoa3rRgeljTzuvjFHVN84-Ltug?docId=663047559c0349d88ed6933791a4669d

Edited May 22, 2011 by CarlD2

[Max]

Carl, Daniels is not running because his family was strongly opposed to the idea (and this is according to something that I heard on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, which of course airs on ultra-liberal MSNBC). The fact that he is hated by social conservatives has nothing to do with it. (Furthermore, one can still be hated by social conservatives and wind up winning the GOP nomination, as witnessed by McCain in 2008.)

It is so very rare for a politican to put family over one's own ambitions, and for this Daniels should be applauded. Of course, it a real shame for the Republicans that he declined to run, since the GOP field is now weaker than ever. (I can only hope like hell that Huntsman will run.)