Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[montestewart]

Ron Paul winning the primary is a serious pipe dream. I really like him. He's honest, doesn't toe the party line and isn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs no matter who the audience is. Also like that Sean Hannity hates him, which is always a good sign in my book.

But his foreign policy (hear him talk about 9/11 for instance), stance on drugs and other strong libertarian ideals make him non electable in the primaries, although he would fair well in the general. I know of many liberals who like Ron Paul and I'm one of them.

I believe the ticket will end up being Romney'Newt. Both are heavy weights and if Newt as VP is given a bigger role, that could be a real game changer. Newt's sleazy history can be masked if he's not in a prominent role and his strengths can be used better.

Nah, I don't see Romney and Newt teaming up. Newt is too headstrong to be a VP under Romney, and if Newt was President, Romney isn't the guy he'd add to shore up his weaknesses. He'd want to add a social conservative, a woman or a minority (Rubio, Cain) as his VP.

Where I could see Gingrich working under Romney (if the two could stomach it) is in a cabinet position. Hillary Clinton's headstrong, and accepted a cabinet level position under Obama. I'm not exactly sure which post he would be suited to.

Despite his flaws and red flags, Gingrich has stronger and longer standing conservative credentials than Romney, has ties to many long-serving Republicans (if he hasn't alienated them somehow) and his intellect seems fairly well-regarded. Perhaps he could help Romney work with congress. But I'm on the outside, and for all I know, his old colleagues hate him and think he's a dummy who just talks a good game.

Ron Paul's not a very commanding public speaker, but he never comes across as struggling to find the most expedient answer for a particular audience. Huntsman and Gingrich can think on their feet and come up with an informed answer. In most cases, Paul already has the answer before the question has been posed, drawing directly from his political philosophy. Whether you agree with him or not, his consistency and apparent lack of BS is appealing. It's too bad he's not asked more questions.

[nate33]

I wouldn't mind one of Romney/Gingrich selecting Ron Paul as their VP. I doubt Ron Paul would do it though. He'd have to have a lot of assurances that Romney/Gingrich intends to dismantle the welfare/warfare complex. At the very least, he'd need a pledge to end the Fed before lending his reputation to their cause.

[hands11]

montestewart

I can understand the dots you were connecting now at least.

Yes, I did omit mentioning Newt and foreign policy experience but as we both agree, I never said he didnt have it. I did say I weighted Huntsman experience with China as being very valuable considering that China is a major player in foreign policy.

As for Newt. I think I have spent most of my time highlighting his weaknesses which are so vast that I find it very unlikely that he is viable by either parties standards. Some my spin his history as already uncovered so it will not effect his campaign. I doubt that. Maybe people that follow politics know a lot about Newt, but not the general public. Now that he has polled higher, he will get taken more seriously and his past will be disclosed to the general public. As that happens, he will fade. He has been busy lobbying against traditional R issues since he got kicked out as speaker by his own party on ethic violations. 1.3 M paid to him by Freddie to be a historian ? Promoting an individual mandate for health insurance. That is not going to play well with R or with R/TPs. Newt will make his money, sell his books and he will get his 5 minutes in the spot light, but IMO, he is DOA and will quickly fall out of favor.... and it should happen even faster then the other did. The process of reviewing these candidates as they make it into the top two is getting more efficient. They are running out of time with the primaries around the corner. Time to find the person who can do well in a general election.

My prediction was that he would be the next flavor to rise as Cain falls. He is a confident and accomplished liar and convincing in a snap shot, but he just makes things up as he goes along. I predict he won't last more then three weeks near the top. If he even last last long.

And yes, I did say I thought Huntsman and Paul are the two most viable candidates up there. If the Rs are lucky, they would discover them instead of wasting their time on people like Cain, Trump, Michelle, or Perry. I have seen Huntsman on TV a lot more the last week or two. Huntsman has laid low and been patient as the circus came to town. But he has remained focused on NH. With the primaries just around the corner, now is the time people will start to take this all more seriously. Now is the time for everyone to make their moves.

So by process of elimination, as the noise gets removed, I believe the ones left will be Mitt, Paul, Huntsman and Rick. Two moderates, 1 libertarian and 1 CC. Michelle is a fighter. She will not go quietly. Maybe she makes a come back with the TPs. I could even see a small Perry come back as Cain and Newt fall out of favor.

Things should bump around a little longer before the final 4-5 get narrowed down. I doubt Newt will be in that group. Nor Cain. There it will come down to one of Michelle or Rick. I think Rick is the one to survive.

[hands11]

I sincerely hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. I'd actually vote........he's sincere/intelligent/crazy enough to make US politics not so predictable.

He's arguably nuts, but anyone with an IQ north of 150 is generally viewed as insane by the masses. From the videos I've watched, he's the perfect man for the job with the huge economic battles ahead.

I actually hoped Bloomberg would run.......

Ron Paul is also my favorite candidate.

I haven't voted against a Democrat, but I'd seriously consider voting for Paul over Obama.

I might even be tempted to take bit of that Apple. I did vote for Ross Perot.

Paul would greatly reduce spending by pulling back troops and downsizing the military. He would also cut a ton of spending while restoring our liberties by ending this endless senseless prohibition...If you want that, Paul would be the one to do it. Those are things a president can actually do without needing to get much if anything done in Congress. I doubt he would change his focus on those two things after getting elected.

But if he did that, the establishment R would probably freak so if he gets to popular, I would expect the establishment R/military industrial complex to go double barrel on him. They would probably get behind Mitt since he is the one most likely to willingly be their puppet. Paul would be someone they can't control. I don't think they would like that.

[fishercob]

Barack Obama will host a fundraising exhibition game on December 12th in Washington D.C.

Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Blake Griffin and John Wall are amongst the players who have committed.

This bums me out. I'm going to vote for Obama again, but that is besides the point. What I love about sports is that it transcends our differences. An event like this just highlights them. This is not activism IMO; let us not confuse hoopsters helping Obama raise money with John Carlos, Tommy Smith, or Manute Bol.

The only silver lining to this for me is that it going to undoubtedly piss off a great number of Republican NBA owners, and I take it as a small measure of revenge for the lockout. In addition to supporting Obama, the "piss off the owners" aspect is probably at play here; it dovetails perfectly with the issues brought up by Bill Simmons in his recent and excellent piece.

Anyhow, I look forward to a time when my sports entertainment and partisan politics are separate again.

[hands11]

More evidence Newt won't last long.

Even Jack Abarmoff says Newt represents everything the TPs hate. An average person who goes to Washington and then leaves to make millions selling his influence as a lobbyist. A man who stands for nothing. A man that is only out for himself and the highest bidder.

Interesting to see Jack is out there highlighting what is wrong with lobbying in general. What he is highlighting isn't even what people do illegal. Its what they do legally. The system is set up so the government is bought by these people. Indo has been pointing this out for a while. He couldnt grow his business until he paid the bribe.

I remember when this used to be an issue. Now it seems no one is talking about it. It keep coming back to campaign financing and lobbying. Year after year after year.

I like to keep my eye on the big issues that get lost in the noise. If things are going to get better, here is what need address.

The Supreme Court and how political they have become. Citizens United is devastating.
Grover. Until R are ripped from this non-elected lobbyist, this country is going nowhere.

Those are the big two. And right behind them

End Prohibition - This 25 year war that wastes vast money and human capitol needs to end
Infrastructure investments - We are so falling behind. American needs a new roof.
The military industrial complex. The empire needs a hair cut.

If you don't know history, research the founding fathers and Hemp. Legalize it again already.

[nate33]

More evidence Newt won't last long.

You keep saying this, but I just don't see it. Newt has "baggage" but that baggage is well known by everyone. He is rising in the polls despite this baggage, not because it hasn't been revealed. The bottom line is that conservatives want someone who can articulate conservatism, and Newt is the best man for the job. There is no doubt that his baggage turns some of the voters off, but I don't anticipate some dramatic decline in the future based on re-reporting of the same old "scandals" of his past.

[DCZards]

Barack Obama will host a fundraising exhibition game on December 12th in Washington D.C.

Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Blake Griffin and John Wall are amongst the players who have committed.

This bums me out. I'm going to vote for Obama again, but that is besides the point. What I love about sports is that it transcends our differences. An event like this just highlights them. This is not activism IMO; let us not confuse hoopsters helping Obama raise money with John Carlos, Tommy Smith, or Manute Bol.

Fish, I had the exact opposite reaction to the news of this Obama fundraiser featuring NBA players. Why shouldn't athletes have and express political preferences, many other entertainers do, including actors, musicians, etc.? I personally prefer that the athletes I root for be knowledgeable of and have opinions about politics, events and other things happening in the world around them. I like athletes who are not afraid to exercise their right to express their political views...just like you and I can.

[montestewart]

More evidence Newt won't last long.

You keep saying this, but I just don't see it. Newt has "baggage" but that baggage is well known by everyone. He is rising in the polls despite this baggage, not because it hasn't been revealed. The bottom line is that conservatives want someone who can articulate conservatism, and Newt is the best man for the job. There is no doubt that his baggage turns some of the voters off, but I don't anticipate some dramatic decline in the future based on re-reporting of the same old "scandals" of his past.

I was sitting with my father-in-law and Fox News was blaring Republican race in the background, and I asked him who he liked. He said Gingrich without hesitation, and I asked him about the well-known and still emerging negatives, and he wasn't moved. Just then, Fox reviewed Newt's negatives, and we examined nine bullet pointed items, He still wasn't moved, and in his own words, I think he was echoing that perception that Gingrich can "can articulate conservatism." Whether that's representative of voters at large, or whether some of the more recently publicized issues like Freddie Mac consulting have a different effect, I don't know, but Gingrich has been in the limelight for a long time, so it's not a world of surprises.

[nate33]

Exactly, montestewart.

I'm not saying Gingrich will win. It's true that his baggage turns off some of the electorate. I'm just saying that I don't think there's a reason to expect a dramatic decline in his existing numbers. He may never add enough to defeat Romney, but he's not going to collapse like Cain or Perry did.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Barack Obama will host a fundraising exhibition game on December 12th in Washington D.C.

Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Blake Griffin and John Wall are amongst the players who have committed.

This bums me out. I'm going to vote for Obama again, but that is besides the point. What I love about sports is that it transcends our differences. An event like this just highlights them. This is not activism IMO; let us not confuse hoopsters helping Obama raise money with John Carlos, Tommy Smith, or Manute Bol.

The only silver lining to this for me is that it going to undoubtedly piss off a great number of Republican NBA owners, and I take it as a small measure of revenge for the lockout. In addition to supporting Obama, the "piss off the owners" aspect is probably at play here; it dovetails perfectly with the issues brought up by Bill Simmons in his recent and excellent piece.

Anyhow, I look forward to a time when my sports entertainment and partisan politics are separate again.

What I find most interesting and ironic is that David Stern has pledged money to many Democratic candidates.

http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_politica ... _Stern.php


What if Stern were at Obama game, too?

[hands11]

More evidence Newt won't last long.

You keep saying this, but I just don't see it. Newt has "baggage" but that baggage is well known by everyone. He is rising in the polls despite this baggage, not because it hasn't been revealed. The bottom line is that conservatives want someone who can articulate conservatism, and Newt is the best man for the job. There is no doubt that his baggage turns some of the voters off, but I don't anticipate some dramatic decline in the future based on re-reporting of the same old "scandals" of his past.

His baggage is not well known to everyone. His baggage is known to people that follow politics.

The Freddy baggage is newly exposed. Lobbyist for Freddy isnt going to play well.

Him supporting the individual mandate is new. That isnt going to play well.

Even conservatives on the news circuit are saying he is DOA
Conservative columnist George Will
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 ... 03791.html


But hey, with a line up as weak as this one, anything is possible. He is a talker that is for sure. And he can play his speaker card in the primaries. Rs love that contract with America stuff.

You said this - Gingrich can "can articulate conservatism.
Is it enough to articulate it or are you supposed to actually live it also ? Because articulating it isn't all that difficult. Even 5 IQ Sarah can do that.

Newt is a skilled politician though. And you never want to totally count out a skilled politician. That's actually one of the main reasons I predicted he would rise in the polls as others failed.

[fishercob]

Barack Obama will host a fundraising exhibition game on December 12th in Washington D.C.

Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Blake Griffin and John Wall are amongst the players who have committed.

This bums me out. I'm going to vote for Obama again, but that is besides the point. What I love about sports is that it transcends our differences. An event like this just highlights them. This is not activism IMO; let us not confuse hoopsters helping Obama raise money with John Carlos, Tommy Smith, or Manute Bol.

Fish, I had the exact opposite reaction to the news of this Obama fundraiser featuring NBA players. Why shouldn't athletes have and express political preferences, many other entertainers do, including actors, musicians, etc.? I personally prefer that the athletes I root for be knowledgeable of and have opinions about politics, events and other things happening in the world around them. I like athletes who are not afraid to exercise their right to express their political views...just like you and I can.

I don't think you'd feel the same way if they were raising money for Sarah Palin. Do you? That said, I'm not saying athletes shouldn't have opinions and political preferences; I just dont particularly enjoy listening to them. I like to watch actors in movies, athletes play sports, and the Morning Joe gang talk politics.

This is an annoying byproduct of the lockout.

[dobrojim]

my take is that we shouldn't give special weight to what celebrities think...
let their 'policy statements' ride or fall on their own respective merits

A couple things I disagree with BHO/Dems on:

1. stationing marines in Australia - the stated reason for this was to act as
a deterrent force against the chinese. Sorry I'm not buying that argument.
The chinese would be crazy to try to invade Australia. I don't think they're
crazy. Second of all, the presence of 2500 marines is not going to influence
their thinking very much one way or the other.

2. the payroll tax cut - Soc Security is not in crisis at the moment. However
this kind of politic'ing could change that sooner than anyone should be comfortable
with. My own view is that we need to lift the ceiling on the tax on earnings, or possibly
create the so-called donut hole where there would be a range of earnings between
somewhere around 100K to some higher number, 250K or possibly a million
that would not be taxed, but the tax would kick back in at this higher level.
My understanding is that a change of this nature would place Soc Sec
in the black as far as the eye can see.

edit to add - I think Newt's personal life baggage will ultimately be far
less important than his professional baggage. He was a lobbyist but can't
bring himself to admit it publicly ie he's now lying about it. No one pays
an historian the kind of money he was paid for historical advice.

[montestewart]

my take is that we shouldn't give special weight to what celebrities think...

I try to give Ted Nugent and Sean Penn equal time

[hands11]

my take is that we shouldn't give special weight to what celebrities think...
let their 'policy statements' ride or fall on their own respective merits

A couple things I disagree with BHO/Dems on:

1. stationing marines in Australia - the stated reason for this was to act as
a deterrent force against the chinese. Sorry I'm not buying that argument.
The chinese would be crazy to try to invade Australia. I don't think they're
crazy. Second of all, the presence of 2500 marines is not going to influence
their thinking very much one way or the other.

2. the payroll tax cut - Soc Security is not in crisis at the moment. However
this kind of politic'ing could change that sooner than anyone should be comfortable
with. My own view is that we need to lift the ceiling on the tax on earnings, or possibly
create the so-called donut hole where there would be a range of earnings between
somewhere around 100K to some higher number, 250K or possibly a million
that would not be taxed, but the tax would kick back in at this higher level.
My understanding is that a change of this nature would place Soc Sec
in the black as far as the eye can see.

edit to add - I think Newt's personal life baggage will ultimately be far
less important than his professional baggage. He was a lobbyist but can't
bring himself to admit it publicly ie he's now lying about it. No one pays
an historian the kind of money he was paid for historical advice.

Invade Australia ?

I haven't followed the story much but I don't think it is to deter an invasion of Australia. My guess would be they simply want to be able to stage equipment a little closer to China in case they want to mess with other neighbors. It would also make it easier to do spy/intel stuff.

[dobrojim]

we already have 2 countries with HUGE military presences much
closer to China, Korea and Okinawa (japan).

the essential question is what critical interest (for US) is
served by garrisoning troops anywhere outside of the US.

Peace, a moral AND economic imperative.

[hands11]

we already have 2 countries with HUGE military presences much
closer to China, Korea and Okinawa (japan).

the essential question is what critical interest (for US) is
served by garrisoning troops anywhere outside of the US.

Peace, a moral AND economic imperative.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arget.html

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/n ... nid=211648

Beijing has been very active around the South China Sea in recent years. More than $6 trillion in goods ship through the sea annually, and the US and its allies want to ensure its hold on open navigation rather than allowing it to be a Chinese lake. So now it is very much apparent that US's security paradigm is revolving around 'China strategy'.

But China is far behind the US as far as military capability is concerned. The US move to Australia would prompt China to concentrate in the Asia Pacific. Probably this time China would try to upgrade its naval power more, than any other military options.

------
Reminds me of Reagan and Russia. We are ahead. We want to ensure the waters are free and it makes them spend more to catch up. China is not an establish economic powerhouse just yet so instead of them spending on Solar, etc., this makes them spend more on defense. That levels the spending playing field.

[hands11]

I just heard the funniest line regarding Willard.

Mitt makes plastic look genuine.

That kind of nails it.

Looks like Newt is the glory boy right now. He is the better debater. And even though he can't put two sentences together without lying, he does it much more convincingly. Plus he has the glory days of the contract with America to draw on.

I give you. President Newt. Well it's not the best name but at least he is as white as plaster. And his wife looks the part of a republican first lady. Bring on the rich white first family. Either Mitt or Newt. Either would do.

So just why does Red Neck America vote for these people again. Do they have some longing for a royal family or something?

[Nivek]

Who's Willard?