Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[dobrojim]

I was troubled by the notion of disenfranchising those
who don't pay taxes (it may have been popper who
suggested this, irrc). I felt about like the guy sitting
next to Herm in the video.

edit to add - did not see his post just before this -

I reject the idea that he shouldn't post however
much I find his views objectionable.

[Zonkerbl]

Hate to chase you off Popper, you seemed at least open to discussion, which is more than I can say for other folks I've had the pleasure of conversing with on the intertubes.

But I gotta say, your last few posts were pretty offensive.

[montestewart]

Get used to it, Wizards2Lottery.

In some ways, I have to a certain degree.

My solution to this is putting popper on ignore. I've yet to read something from him that isn't the usual Fox News drivel and I'm assuming that is never changing.

I don't agree with many (maybe most) of popper's expressed views, but it's not like he's intentionally disrespectful, and he's been a big part of some very thought provoking discussions, hence, I hope the following isn't true:

I give up. I'll voluntarily refrain from posting. I've learned some interesting things on this thread but it is obvious that my opinions and thoughts are not welcome to the majority. Best of luck to all.

[Wizards2Lottery]

If he expects to hold the view points he does, he should be ready accept the backlash it might generate. Intentions are hard to assume over the interwebs. Usually when you post something, you have to assume for yourself that the others might take it the other way.

I have no problem with him posting what he does. Making the decision to not read it is simply my own. He is free to post in this thread. Heck, I'm not even a regular poster, just an observer.

[Nivek]

fish: I'm not following your logic. What should shape laws if not the beliefs of the people making them? I think the criteria for laws, legislation, regulation, government initiatives, etc. should be that it "works" in the real world. I don't care what set of beliefs motivate or shape a particular law -- I only care about the effect.

The beliefs of the governed.

I don't want to spawn a whole tangent on representative democracy, but laws should be made with the "end user" in mind, not because a lawmaker's religion dictates it.

I agree laws should be made with the "end user" in mind, but I don't care about the lawmaker's motivation. I don't think that's relevant. What matters is the effect on the end user.

For instance, I'm Jewish. Observant Jews ranging from ultra-orthodox to those who call under the traditional Conservative (capital C) movement keep kosher and follow certain dietary laws to varying degrees of strictness. Some people do it because they believe in their hearts that these laws are derived from the word of the Lord, breaking them is a sin, etc. I'm pretty sure the Old Testament would punish the breaking of these laws with something fun like stoning.

I don't want to government telling me it's a crime to eat shellfish, pork, or a steak and cheese. I welcome Jewish lawmakers to hold such beliefs and respect their right to do so. But those beliefs shouldn't shape laws about what people can and can't do.

Aren't those dietary restrictions essentially the first food safety regulations?

I know there are biblical prohibitions against things like killing, stealing, etc. If those prohibitions didn't exist, or the old testament didn't exist, somehow I think people would figure out those things were wrong, and societies all over the world would have laws against them.

Agreed.

[popper]

Thanks for the welcome back. I realize that some of my opinions offend but that is not my intention. I have changed my mind about many things over the last three or four decades. I have either read something new that I had not considered before or had a discussion with someone that convinced me to alter my position (including from posters on this thread).

In retrospect, I can see how my recent posts about atheist and the less recent post about voting rights may have offended some. I apologize. I think had you seen my polemics on Christians, Muslims, abortion, etc. you would have felt more comfortable knowing that I am an equal opportunity critic.

I will continue to try and back up my positions with facts and logic. It frustrates me when my critics attack my position without dissecting or finding flaws in the logic that they rest upon.

BTW - I was brought up Christian but have committed enough sins for a hundred people. I will soon be traveling on a one-way ticket to a very hot place south of here.

Interesting stuff below:

Subject: Chinese Numerology

Chinese numerology and Feng Shui for 2011. This year we are going to
experience four unusual dates: 1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11, 11/11/11,
and that is not all. Take the last two digits of the year you were
born and the age you will be this year and the result will add up to
111 for everyone!!!! This is the year of MONEY. Also, this year,
October will have 5 Sundays, 5 Mondays and 5 Saturdays. This happens
only once every 823 years. These particular years are known as
Moneybag years. The proverb goes that if you send this to eight good
friends, money will appear in the next four days, as is explained in
the Chinese feng shui. Those who don't continue the chain, won't
receive. It's a mystery, but it is worth a try. Good luck to you.
This only happens once in 800 years.

[Zonkerbl]

Popper, here's a promise I make to you -- if you say something that I find offensive, I'll let you know. Sometimes you need someone to point out the beam in your eye. Deal?

[popper]

Popper, here's a promise I make to you -- if you say something that I find offensive, I'll let you know. Sometimes you need someone to point out the beam in your eye. Deal?

Deal

[montestewart]

Also, this year,
October will have 5 Sundays, 5 Mondays and 5 Saturdays. This happens
only once every 823 years.

Well, the same thing happened in 2005 (and 1977, 1983, 1994, etc.). There are only fourteen different calendar years, seven starting on the seven days of the week, and seven more for leap years. It's bound to happen a little more than every 823 years.

Also, for those posters born after 1999 (and we know who you are) adding the last two digits of the year they were born to their age will be 11.

[popper]

Also, this year,
October will have 5 Sundays, 5 Mondays and 5 Saturdays. This happens
only once every 823 years.

Well, the same thing happened in 2005 (and 1977, 1983, 1994, etc.). There are only fourteen different calendar years, seven starting on the seven days of the week, and seven more for leap years. It's bound to happen a little more than every 823 years.

Also, for those posters born after 1999 (and we know who you are) adding the last two digits of the year they were born to their age will be 11.

Thanks for exposing flaws. I posted it without validating claims.

[fishercob]

fish: I'm not following your logic. What should shape laws if not the beliefs of the people making them? I think the criteria for laws, legislation, regulation, government initiatives, etc. should be that it "works" in the real world. I don't care what set of beliefs motivate or shape a particular law -- I only care about the effect.

The beliefs of the governed.

I don't want to spawn a whole tangent on representative democracy, but laws should be made with the "end user" in mind, not because a lawmaker's religion dictates it.

I agree laws should be made with the "end user" in mind, but I don't care about the lawmaker's motivation. I don't think that's relevant. What matters is the effect on the end user.

No doubt effect matters, as does "intended effect." And if that intended effect is "stopping people from sinning" in some capacity, then it's a problem.

For instance, I'm Jewish. Observant Jews ranging from ultra-orthodox to those who call under the traditional Conservative (capital C) movement keep kosher and follow certain dietary laws to varying degrees of strictness. Some people do it because they believe in their hearts that these laws are derived from the word of the Lord, breaking them is a sin, etc. I'm pretty sure the Old Testament would punish the breaking of these laws with something fun like stoning.

I don't want to government telling me it's a crime to eat shellfish, pork, or a steak and cheese. I welcome Jewish lawmakers to hold such beliefs and respect their right to do so. But those beliefs shouldn't shape laws about what people can and can't do.

Aren't those dietary restrictions essentially the first food safety regulations?

That's certainly the theory, but it's a perfect example of religious leaders being crazy and not updating regulations for keep up with the time. There's two elements of biblical Jewish dietary laws (1) certain prohibited animals -- shellfish, split-hooved animals, etc (2) not cooking a cow in it's mother's milk. The first group is thought by commentators to be just what you said -- the first food safety regulations. Back then, perhaps there was a higher instance of disease from shellfish, pigs, etc., and they were thought to be unclean and less safe. Now, the second piece was all about morality -- that it was cruel to cook a baby in it's own mother's milk. Nothing about mixing dairy and meat -- nothing even about cooking a calf in milk from a cow other than its mother. Well, the Rabbi's came in and decided the only way you could be SURE you weren't cooking a calf in it's mother's milk was to keep all meat and dairy separate (mmmmmkay.....). Shellfish and pork are no less safe than beef, but they're not Kosher to this day.

Which brings me to my point. Even if the Bible was spoken/written by god (not my personal belief, but whatever), all the other stuff was added in based on leaders' interpretations of what was right/best for the people. The modern effect probably in no way resembles the original intent. My point is not to take Scalian/constructionist interpretation of laws written in another era (be they in the bible or the Constitution) . My point is I don't want elected leaders interpreting the word of god to makes laws -- unless that's what the electorate has specifically asked for.

I know there are biblical prohibitions against things like killing, stealing, etc. If those prohibitions didn't exist, or the old testament didn't exist, somehow I think people would figure out those things were wrong, and societies all over the world would have laws against them.

Agreed.

You are so smart. Handsome too.

[fugop]

Kevin,

A liberal-democratic political order (like the United States, in theory), is founded on methodological modesty -- the means that we use to accomplish politically determined ends should be based on what works, not on any sort of totalistic theory of the world.* Totalistic theories inevitably end in hubris and failure. The more modest one's pre-assumptions about viable means to an end, the more likely one is to actually accomplish one's ends.

There are two central mechanisms that structure a liberal-democratic system. The first is the concept of rights, which are functionally pseudo-ontological constraints on the means available to governance. Basically, rights carve out a set of unacceptable options from the full set of available means to accomplish an end. The magic here, what's generally called the paradox of liberalism, is that it's possible to adopt ontological constraints that ultimately increase the range of viable means available to accomplish a certain end.

The magic is in the concept of legitimacy. A government that operates without constraint is going to struggle to operate without opposition, and will rarely, if ever, benefit from trust. When people have a degree of confidence that they are protected from certain courses of government action, their opposition and distrust will wane, turning otherwise non-viable courses of action into realistic options. It's called an "enabling constraint." Stephen Holmes' Passions and Constraints is probably the best modern articulation of the concept.

Among the major modern political ideologies -- basically Communism and its variants, Fascism and its variants, and Liberalism and its variants** -- Liberalism is actually the best at producing a state capable of accomplishing the political objectives of its relevant citizenry. A modest, constrained government is more powerful than the totalizing alternatives.

The second mechanism is the influence of mediating institutions. A liberal order fundamentally depends on the viability and health of mediating institutions to work -- methodological modesty doesn't imply that you approach every issue tabula rasa, as a black slate. You rely on systems of authority, but they are ideally open -- subject to verification, only pseudo- or non-governmental -- their authority is derived from history, not dictate, and always criticized. Historically, the most important mediating institutions have been the media, academia, and religious/moral groups. The media ensures that government is operating under the constraints it professes, academia offers solutions compatible with those constraints, and religious/moral groups ensure that recognized constraints remain consistent with moral and practical norms, such that constraints retain the power to legitimate government action.

The tension in modern politics is that our fights are more about our system of governance, rather than within it. Very little of what I described above makes sense to a modern conservative -- they think you constrain government solely because it's right, not because it's also good. They bring totalizing ideologies to the table without hint of shame or awareness of their absurdity -- certain religious and economic fundamentalism.

They view the benificent powers unleashed by limited government as a threat, rather than an opportunity. Legitimacy is an obstacle to oppose and overcome, rather than the central mechanism by which we collectively achieve our political ends. They deny legitimacy to their opponents, even when procedural mechanisms that have historically conferred legitimacy are strictly abided by.

They reject the authority of any mediating institution that doesn't narrowly serve their agenda. The media is liberal/evil (and it is, in fact, liberal, just not in the way conservative think), academia is devilish (evolution, global warming, even anti-missile defense), and religiosity/morality is a bludgeon.

There isn't an easy way to address attacks on a system in ways that are compatible with the systems internal logic. Entities, including most of the mediating institutions mentioned above, respond with ham-fisted idiocy to the attacks leveled against them. They get mired in swamps of circularity, seeking to defend their authority against critics who will never recognize it. You basically get a dysfunctional system that is incapable of working on any level.

* Leftist critics of liberalism label this "instrumental rationality" and have a long list of indictments against the approach. Some have considerable merit.

** Most modern forms of European socialism should properly be considered liberal, rather than variants of Communism. They use the same concepts of legitimacy, etc. -- they simply disagree on the empirical question on what constitutes an enable constraint, and tend to think the property-based constraints on government action are disproportionate to its legitimating benefits.

[dobrojim]

nice post^

five stars

The second mechanism is the influence of mediating institutions.

I think the major perhaps not explicitly stated complaint of the OWS
folks is that the 'mediating institutions' have been corrupted by the
influence of overwhelming amounts of money ie the 1% obtaining
too much influence over the 99% in how the mediating institutions
operate.

[fugop]

Thanks Jim.

There's no question that mediating institutions are broken or breaking. They don't currently fill the role we need them to in order for us to have a well-functioning government.

Ari Berman's article on "the austerity class" goes into some detail on your point:

Taken together, the various strands of the austerity class form a reinforcing web that is difficult to break. Its think tanks and wonks produce a relentless stream of disturbing statistics warning of skyrocketing debt and looming bankruptcy, which in turn is trumpeted by politicians and the press and internalized by the public. Thus forms what Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent calls a Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop, wherein the hypothetical possibility of a US debt crisis somewhere in the future takes precedence over the very real jobs crisis now.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164073 ... washington

[Wizards2Lottery]

The Daily Show has been killing it lately.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-o ... -it-up-to-

This video has me in tears.

[pancakes3]

eloquent, esoteric chunk of text

I found myself nodding along as I read, but I have some questions...

What do you mean "two central mechanims that structure a liberal-democratic system." ?

As far as I can tell, you meant that those two things dictate how the government governs, aka - what shapes the laws and powers that govern our nation? 2 things: Rights and Society?

I can buy that. Society holds things in check, but when social pressures squeeze too hard from one side, there's a buffer on the other side deemed ilalienable rights to keep us from self-imposing a puritan society upon ourselves. ok. sure.

then when you say the most important mediating institutions include the media, academia, and religion? i have issues with that. what about lobbies? what about special interest groups? what about ralph nader? what about OWS, Tea Party, Civil Rights movement, Gender rights movement, Legalize It, MADD, etc.? I would argue that those institutions have shaped our laws much more than any religious pressure. Scopes vs Tn?

Religion does shape people's mores. It's shaped mine. It's shaped Popper's. It's shaped billions of people around the world - there are a lot more religious people in america than not (2008 gallup poll showed 34% claimed no religion and 1.6% was outright atheist/agnostic). However, would you really call them mediating institutions? They have no direct manipulation on the government. It's just a reflection of society. The tool itself is activism, and that activism is hardly ever under the banner of God - the successful ones anyway.

anyway, just want to keep the awesome flow of ideas open before it degenerates into he-said, she-said gotcha-isms again.

[hands11]

This is a polemic I wrote approx. ten years ago. Pls let me know if you find a flaw in the logic.

A Conversation on the Pursuit of Self-Interest


Sally – I found a wallet on a deserted beach today with $300 in it.

John – Are you going to keep it?

Sally – I haven’t decided yet. What do you think I should do?

John – Does it have the owner’s identification in it?

Sally – Yes.

John – Did anyone see you pick it up?

Sally – Not a soul.

John – Are you influenced by any particular religious belief?

Sally – Not really.

John – Tell me then Sally, what is it that you really desire in life?

Sally – Like most people, I desire pleasure, comfort, security and acceptance.

John – Well then, if you kept the money, would it help you satisfy your desires?

Sally – Yes. By keeping the money, I achieve some measure of pleasure, comfort and security. Since no one saw me take the wallet, then my desire for acceptance is not diminished.

John – Then in accordance with your belief system, it sounds like you’re going to keep the money.

Sally – I don’t see why I shouldn’t, although I have been taught throughout my life that stealing is wrong.

John – People are taught all kinds of things in life. Some are taught to hate a particular ethnic or religious group. Others are taught to worship the sun. Therefore wouldn’t you agree that lessons taught, are not, in and of themselves, necessarily worthy of acceptance.

Sally – I would have to agree with that.

John – Then it follows that, in any given situation, each individual should independently examine alternative actions to determine that action which most satisfies their desires.

Sally – To do otherwise would not make sense.

John – So now when you independently examine your alternative actions, to keep the money or return it, which action will most satisfy your desires?

Sally – Clearly, keeping the money would most satisfy my desires.

John – Then the question begs, what about the commission of even more heinous crime, like murder, in pursuit of your desires?

Sally – I can think of no logical reason not to commit murder if it contributes to the satisfaction of my desires, and, if there is little chance of being caught and punished.

John – I see. But what about the many people in the world with similar belief systems who do not commit crimes to satisfy their desires?

Sally – I understand now that if these criminal actions help an individual satisfy his or her desires, and a sufficiently low probability of apprehension exists, then one would be acting illogically not to engage in crime.

John –Your point is well taken. But how, given the logic of your criminal behavior, will you protect your reputation, and thereby advance your desire for acceptance.

Sally – I will conceal from others my true nature, the logic that informs it, and the extent to which I will commit crime to satisfy my desires.

John – Does that mean that everyone in the world with a similar belief system should commit crime to advance their interest?

Sally – Only if they are thinking logically and there is a sufficiently low probability that they will be caught.

Well, that is a dialog, but not a very deep one. Sally seems easily persuaded and has no bigger picture outside of.. "Sally – Like most people, I desire pleasure, comfort, security and acceptance."

I don't think people have to believe in God to have more depth then that.

But even using this simple list, I would think her desire for acceptance would stop her form keeping the money. I could even say her desire for pleasure would lead her to return it.

Personally, I find great pleasure in being an honest person. I also find pleasure in reunited people with there lost property. I know if I lost mine, I would be stressed. So I would assume that is how the other person is feeling.

Also, just because people don't believe in God doesn't mean they do not have morals or that they might not believe in things like Karma.

My take. I don't think believing in God is the determining factor for a lot of people. Actually I could make the argument the other way. What if a God believing person was praying for help getting their bills paid then the next day they find a wallet. I could easily see that person saying... Thank you God and keeping the money.

Point is, you dont have to believe in God to believe that you don't take what is not yours and that returning it to the person it belongs to would be a good act that can bring you and them pleasure. And that act would reenforce your belief in people being decent. And that by doing that, you build up society and it passes around good.

[hands11]

Kevin,

A liberal-democratic political order (like the United States, in theory), is founded on methodological modesty -- the means that we use to accomplish politically determined ends should be based on what works, not on any sort of totalistic theory of the world.* Totalistic theories inevitably end in hubris and failure. The more modest one's pre-assumptions about viable means to an end, the more likely one is to actually accomplish one's ends.

There are two central mechanisms that structure a liberal-democratic system. The first is the concept of rights, which are functionally pseudo-ontological constraints on the means available to governance. Basically, rights carve out a set of unacceptable options from the full set of available means to accomplish an end. The magic here, what's generally called the paradox of liberalism, is that it's possible to adopt ontological constraints that ultimately increase the range of viable means available to accomplish a certain end.

The magic is in the concept of legitimacy. A government that operates without constraint is going to struggle to operate without opposition, and will rarely, if ever, benefit from trust. When people have a degree of confidence that they are protected from certain courses of government action, their opposition and distrust will wane, turning otherwise non-viable courses of action into realistic options. It's called an "enabling constraint." Stephen Holmes' Passions and Constraints is probably the best modern articulation of the concept.

Among the major modern political ideologies -- basically Communism and its variants, Fascism and its variants, and Liberalism and its variants** -- Liberalism is actually the best at producing a state capable of accomplishing the political objectives of its relevant citizenry. A modest, constrained government is more powerful than the totalizing alternatives.

The second mechanism is the influence of mediating institutions. A liberal order fundamentally depends on the viability and health of mediating institutions to work -- methodological modesty doesn't imply that you approach every issue tabula rasa, as a black slate. You rely on systems of authority, but they are ideally open -- subject to verification, only pseudo- or non-governmental -- their authority is derived from history, not dictate, and always criticized. Historically, the most important mediating institutions have been the media, academia, and religious/moral groups. The media ensures that government is operating under the constraints it professes, academia offers solutions compatible with those constraints, and religious/moral groups ensure that recognized constraints remain consistent with moral and practical norms, such that constraints retain the power to legitimate government action.

The tension in modern politics is that our fights are more about our system of governance, rather than within it. Very little of what I described above makes sense to a modern conservative -- they think you constrain government solely because it's right, not because it's also good. They bring totalizing ideologies to the table without hint of shame or awareness of their absurdity -- certain religious and economic fundamentalism.

They view the benificent powers unleashed by limited government as a threat, rather than an opportunity. Legitimacy is an obstacle to oppose and overcome, rather than the central mechanism by which we collectively achieve our political ends. They deny legitimacy to their opponents, even when procedural mechanisms that have historically conferred legitimacy are strictly abided by.

They reject the authority of any mediating institution that doesn't narrowly serve their agenda. The media is liberal/evil (and it is, in fact, liberal, just not in the way conservative think), academia is devilish (evolution, global warming, even anti-missile defense), and religiosity/morality is a bludgeon.

There isn't an easy way to address attacks on a system in ways that are compatible with the systems internal logic. Entities, including most of the mediating institutions mentioned above, respond with ham-fisted idiocy to the attacks leveled against them. They get mired in swamps of circularity, seeking to defend their authority against critics who will never recognize it. You basically get a dysfunctional system that is incapable of working on any level.

* Leftist critics of liberalism label this "instrumental rationality" and have a long list of indictments against the approach. Some have considerable merit.

** Most modern forms of European socialism should properly be considered liberal, rather than variants of Communism. They use the same concepts of legitimacy, etc. -- they simply disagree on the empirical question on what constitutes an enable constraint, and tend to think the property-based constraints on government action are disproportionate to its legitimating benefits.

I'm going to have to go back to college in order to follow everything you wrote.

It was a good read though. Obviously something you have thought about and studied.

But just a suggestion. I few less big words when not needed. If you are covering things the average persons may not understand, a little more detail about it would help. That is if your goal was the spread knowledge vs sounding smart.

But a great post. I have often pointed this type of thing out, even on here. Not only is one side not willing to debate and doesn't believe in science, but the media has been going through a transition since CNN started the 24 hr new cycle. Also, the internet changed how information is spreed.

But I am thinking positive about the issue. I think it probably has hit bottom already and things are swinging the other way. But we are only a few steps off the bottom so things are still pretty bad right now.

[pineappleheadindc]

This is OT.

I'm feeling quite nostalgic tonight. Reading this thread reminds me of why I've enjoyed this board for so many years. It's filled with all kinds of smart people of varying perspectives. I've enjoyed people over the years who have made me challenge my beliefs and perceptions of things; who have educated me about what's going in granularly in their part of America; who have patiently explained things to me over and over again until I finally get it.

This is not an exclusive list and I know I'm leaving people and topics out and I profusely apologize. But I've really enjoyed talking and reading Severn's take on society and micro-society expectations etc; I've enjoyed chatting with Kev about race and religion - LDS things in specific - and I've learned and grown from these interactions.

I read montestewart, illuminare, and others with great interest because they're articulate and thoughful and help me see new perspectives. I publicly thank Nate33, Greendale, and popper for writing in a way that makes me challenge my pre-conceived notions. And keep me from living a life in a total echo chamber. Generally persuasive, thoughful arguments which are a credit to each of them.

And I have peeps with whom I share many personal beliefs. Jim (love to see you and your daughter out enjoying live sports), hands, wiz2lottery, Zards, Dallas, fugop etc. It should be of little surprise that I've enjoyed reading your posts.

And then there's the down-the-middle guys like zonker and induveca (and a whole lot of other folks). Always great contributing. Zonker's economics and indu's business backgrounds are particularly useful and educational.

I wish JRo were still around to read this post. But I've enjoyed every minute of this board. And I owe it to all of you'all (and JRo for pulling me in). All of us old timers have been thru so much together -- WizStorm and I got married (re-married for me) - Rafael, you're next - and there have been lotsa kids born. We were all Swami when he went thru his accident.

I'm sure that thoughout my years, long after I've stopped logging in because my life has moved me to a new place, I'll remember this board - and all of you - with a full and grateful heart.

Pine

[hands11]

News Flash. The wheels are coming off this R Primary race.

Michelle's has been falling off the cliff for a while. Besides, who could see that nut wing husband of hers as the first man. But she does have the right answer to the abortion question so she is still in the game. After all, a big part of that party is looking for not only a lip service anti-abortion candidate, they want an anti abortion fighter........No taxes. No abortions. Get those right and you can be the R nomination.

Herman's campaign in chaos - making it up as he goes alone. I told you this guy wasn't really serious about running. I expect him to start falling hard. But at least he is selling books. But he won't go away because the Koch brother will keep funding him to push their agenda.

Perry doesn't want to join the debates anymore since he suck at them and he totally screwed up bringing up the birther thing again. That should get interesting. Sounds like another GWB. He didnt want to debate either. Hell, he filtered his crowds to no one would ask him any challenging questions. Wow, do people realize just how dictatorial things were under Bush.

Well, next up. Newt another book tour candidate - they seem to love that type), Rick S and if they are lucky, they will discover Huntsman. Come New Hampshire, he just might be getting some attention. If he sticks around, they might eventually discover their most viable candidate, but I'm not holding my breath. If Huntsman was smart he would switch parties.

But the core of this partys early primary run is a Rick, Michelle, Perry and kind of Paul. Mitt won't go any higher then he is but he isnt going away either.

So where is Alan Keyes. That would spice this thing up. I want see Cain debate Keyes.

So who do you'll now think will be the last person standing ?