The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

If we do get more stimulus we can be sure that far right Congressmen who claimed to oppose it will be there to celebrate.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/gop-rep-frank-guinta-slams-stimulus-cuts-ribbon-for-stimulus-project.php

[Max]

Carl, when you're right, you're right. I'm sure that hypocrities on the right will be there to take credit for any more stimulus that comes to their districts. (I won't be surprised if I'm attacked as wishy-washy becuase I happened to agree with you on that point.)

Here's an article from "Faux" News regarding Jon Corzine's dwindling wealth: (Sorry to use a right-wing website for info, but after other folks have gone to liberal websites to support their arguments, I think I'm entitled to link to a partisan site once in a while.)

http://www.foxbusine...his-reputation/

It's funny that Democrats--who claim to be the party of campaign finance reform--didn't make much of a fuss when Corzine spent $60 million of his own money to buy a U.S. Senate seat in 2000. Furthermore, Democrats were strangely silent when Obama opted out of pubilc financing in 2008 (reneging on an agreement he earlier made with McCain), thereby having four times the amount of campaign cash as did the Arizona senator.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

So much for caring about veterans.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/romney-spit-balls-his-way-to-privatizing-veterans-benefits.php?ref=fpb

[Roman]

Well, I just don't know, bud. I wonder how he thinks that would work out?

[DRW50]

It's Newt's turn to be the savior of the non-Romneys.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/new-national-polls-show-newt-coming-on-strong-in-gop-race-yes-really.php?ref=fpb

Santorum must be pretty awful to not ever be at the top of these polls.

[Max]

Santorum has been quietly fying under the radar while slowly rising in the polls. When you combine that with the fact that he has not made any major blunders (this year), I would not at all be surprised if he wins the Iowa caucuses. (Now that Gingrich has surged in the polls, the huge mistakes he made at the very start of his campaign will likely come back to haunt him.)

Members of Occupy Wall Street are very talented spin doctors. After they were forced to leave Zuccotti Park, they managed to make a defeat sound like a victory, by saying things to the effect of "This breathes new life into our movement. Since we're no longer confined to the park, we can spread our message to an even larger audience." Seriously, after listening to spin like that, you'd think that it was their plan all along to leave Zuccotti Park and move elsewhere.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/obama-assassination-lauren-pierce_n_1098280.html?ref=politics

Just sick. Really, really sick.

[Roman]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/scott-walker-wisconsin-abstinence-jobs-plan

How did this man ever get elected to higher office?

[Max]

Roman, this only happened because Obama and the Democrats were so unpopular in WI (a solidly Democratic state that was one of ten that Michael Dukakis won) in 2010 that a huge GOP tide swept the state which resulted in the election of a very conservative Republican as governor.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

I doubt it. Wisconsin has always been mixed. Walker just conned people by hiding his true agenda. Voters always fall for it.

[Roman]

That's the shame, Carl. They fall for this garbage and then have to wait 6 months to a year to correct their mistakes. It they succeed next year, it should serve as a HUGE message to anyone who thinks getting into office and then ignoring the will of the people is the right thing to do.

[Max]

I've got to respectively disagree with you here, Carl. Even though the non-partisan political "experts" have long claimed that WI is a swing state, the state's electoral history (aside from the 2010 GOP wave and popularity held by four-term former governor Tommy Thompson) does not bear this out. For one thing, the state has long had two Democrats in the U.S. Senate up until this year. More importantly, one has to remember that WI hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election since 1984; in 2008, Obama won the state by 17 points.

Regardless of how I feel, I'm sure that Romney (or whomever the GOP nominee is) will waste tons of time and money in WI next year when he really needs to exclusively spend his resources in the true swing states of FL, OH, and VA (as well as smaller ones like CO, NH, and NV). There's do doubt in my mind that Obama will win WI in 2012. (What's even worse than the GOP spending tons of money in WI is that they are going to do the same thing in PA & MI, two so-called swing states that have a long history of voting Democratic in presidential elections. These states will require the GOP to spend even more resources than WI will; furthermore the fact that they are so unionized and contain huge urban areas will make them such an uphill battle for a Republican nominee to carry.)

The bottom line is that if George W. Bush never won WI, PA, or MI, what would make Democrats fear that Romney would win them (against a much more difficult opponent)? Whether he wins or loses re-election, I can predict right now that Obama carries all three of these states in 2012.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

2008 was an aberration. Kerry and Gore won narrowly. Russ Feingold won narrowly in 1992 and 1998. Before that, a very far right Republican had that Senate seat from 1980-1992. Herb Kohl is an institution in Wisconsin, with big bucks - that was his seat, more than any party's seat.

Wisconsin is extremely polarized, with ugly conflicts on race and many other factions. Scott Walker epitomizes that divisiveness. He has for many years, long before Obama was in office. Voters just got suckered because he changed his tune during the election, lying about his plans.

[DRW50]

The spin from Romney is that his views "evolved" to where they are now - extremely hostile to women (so hostile that he endorsed an amendment that would ban birth control and IVF) and gays. Yet here we are, in 1993, when several people say that Mitt Romney told them homosexual behavior was "perverse" and "reprehensible."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/16/368369/romney-flashback-homosexuality-is-perverse-and-reprehensible/

So, if this is right, that means:

- Romney was extremely opposed to homosexuality in 1993

- Romney actually claimed to be more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy in 1994, and again pretended to support gay rights in 2002..

So this is a man who was, if these witnesses are right, virulently against gays, yet managed to hide that for almost a decade? How is this "evolving" or being a pure-hearted true believer? How opportunistic can someone be??

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/deficit-super-committee-deadline_n_1101296.html?ref=politics

Reported on MSNBC, there are some Republicans who have told GN privately that under no circumstances would ANY taxes be raised. That is also the sticking point in the Super Congress.