Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[hands11]

wow

Kim Jong il is dead. Heart attack.

[hands11]

Like clock work, Newt is falling in the polls.

So much for the idea that everyone already knew his baggage. Besides, he doesn't have the money or the organization to run.

So next on the script is an up tick for Paul. But that isn't going to work either. He is to anti war.

In the end, the biggest story about the Republican primaries is going to be about a third party candidate. Mitt will stick around. Paul will get some attention. Rick and Michelle will share a voice until one drops out, then the other will get a bump. But at the end of the day, there just isn't a viable candidate in this group. Mitt is likely the last man standing and they just don't like Mitt, so it will be about the 3rd party.

[montestewart]

speaking of clockwork...

[montestewart]

Ron Paul angle I've only barely heard discussed in the past. Could become something bigger. Or maybe not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... im-in-Iowa

[hands11]

Ron Paul angle I've only barely heard discussed in the past. Could become something bigger. Or maybe not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... im-in-Iowa

I caught that little video clip but didn't pay much attention to it. Thanks for the link to the story.

Like Newt, Paul has been on record for a lot of things but no one ever took him serious as a #1. If he stays up in the polls, he better get used to answering questions better then just walking out.

Paul is like a Ralph Nader for the Dems. They are good to bring attention to topics but I don't think they make good front runners.

I still don't see the viable candidate on that side. Mitt is about as good as it gets for that group but they just don't like Mitt. I don't blame them. He is the plastic man. He is fine for the top 1% of the party and that is where most the money comes from, but I don't think he represents the masses.

They need someone like Paul Ryan.

I still say Huntsman would be their best choice from this line up.

Seems some young Republicans might get it,

http://youtu.be/nppMDBvyxP8

[hands11]

Dominionism Theocracy, New Apostolic Reformation

Ok, this is something I hadn't heard about before.

http://youtu.be/x8j7CbB41sM

[GetBuLLish]

Just saw this Dylan Ratigan rant from August. Great stuff and gets at why I'm a registered independent. The system -- this two party system -- is broken.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4yDCUJJm_U&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

I would vote for this guy along with Ron Paul.

A Ron Paul and Dylan Ratigan ticket would make me more happy than a Bulls championship (Bulls fan here). Ratigan is a huge Paul fan, by the way.

[hands11]

I've been saying what is guy is saying since the early 80s so I'm not that impressed.

I'm just glad people are finally waking up. But he is very late to the game. Where was he during the unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for wars. That would have been a good time to freak out.

The biggest problem has been the dismantling of the middle class and unions while the economy become services and international. That and the idea that tax cuts paid for themselves. Thank you Reagan. That and government is the problem.

Dems have been and still are the ones who have defended the middle class and balanced taxes. We are just finally seeing it all come to the forefront. These failed economic policies were planned. They were not by accident. Its call creating a bubble so you can steal wealth while. Increase the debt to starve the beast is the double whammy. Do you really think the richest of the rich don't know what is happening. They promoted it. This is a total win win for them. Assets bubbled. They win because they were invested at lower prices. Then they go to big to fail. They get bailed out by the government (us). Assets crash. No problem. They buy them back up on the cheap. This is why more and more wealth has gone to the top 1%. They win coming and going. Rich people love market to go high and then low. Now people are waking up. It is rigged for the rich. Indi will tell you.

Dems have wanted what Ron Paul wants but they had to react to R bashing them as weak on defense. Politics dictates that you have to adjust if the people want what they want. They wanted strong defense, so Dems moved to match the Rs.

Paul can say what he is saying as a R, but he hasn't been elected as president. So we will see how well his message plays out. I'm just happy he is helping to move the bar to the left more.

Dems are doing what is politically possible. Finishing the wars and pulling out when it makes political sense. And even when they do that, the R still say we should have stayed in Iraq longer. They are fighting an up hill political battle. They would do more quicker if the Rs wouldn't dry hump them every-time they try to get out of one of these wars or pay for tax cuts that are not paid for.

[hands11]

So who is going to win Iowa tonight.

Conversational wisdom would stay Mitt

But Rick has been making some noise and I hear he had a really good ground game.

[old rem]

I've been saying what is guy is saying since the early 80s so I'm not that impressed.

I'm just glad people are finally waking up. But he is very late to the game. Where was he during the unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for wars. That would have been a good time to freak out.

The biggest problem has been the dismantling of the middle class and unions while the economy become services and international. That and the idea that tax cuts paid for themselves. Thank you Reagan. That and government is the problem.

Dems have been and still are the ones who have defended the middle class and balanced taxes. We are just finally seeing it all come to the forefront. These failed economic policies were planned. They were not by accident. Its call creating a bubble so you can steal wealth while. Increase the debt to starve the beast is the double whammy. Do you really think the richest of the rich don't know what is happening. They promoted it. This is a total win win for them. Assets bubbled. They win because they were invested at lower prices. Then they go to big to fail. They get bailed out by the government (us). Assets crash. No problem. They buy them back up on the cheap. This is why more and more wealth has gone to the top 1%. They win coming and going. Rich people love market to go high and then low. Now people are waking up. It is rigged for the rich. Indi will tell you.

Dems have wanted what Ron Paul wants but they had to react to R bashing them as weak on defense. Politics dictates that you have to adjust if the people want what they want. They wanted strong defense, so Dems moved to match the Rs.

Paul can say what he is saying as a R, but he hasn't been elected as president. So we will see how well his message plays out. I'm just happy he is helping to move the bar to the left more.

Dems are doing what is politically possible. Finishing the wars and pulling out when it makes political sense. And even when they do that, the R still say we should have stayed in Iraq longer. They are fighting an up hill political battle. They would do more quicker if the Rs wouldn't dry hump them every-time they try to get out of one of these wars or pay for tax cuts that are not paid for.

All that........

The GOPs are still gung ho for the worst kind of " Trickle Down" false economics,and pushing for even MORE deregulation of everything that's PROVEN to need honest regulating. We can't be the watchdog at the henhouse fending off corporate foxes. We have agencies to do that...and they work except when the Repubs deliberately undermine and corrupt them.

It's all about diverting billions to the rich and getting the big kickback. Meanwhile a prospering middle class is what always marks a healthy economy. Whether it's Paul or Perry....Gingrich or Bush, trying to veer toward old style feudalism and to thwart democracy...is not in the national interest. Many people who ARE "1%" even get that they prosper when the WHOLE nation prospers.

[popper]

Should be an interesting election year. Those that want a Euro-style welfare state (a proven failure but endorsed by President Obama and most on this board) against those that want free market enterprise. It is interesting that President Obama garners far more contributions from Wall Street than all Repubs combined. Democratic Sen. Schumer is the torch bearer for Wall Street give-aways.

Dems want more regulation. Why not add an additional 50,000 pages to the albatross of a tax code that already exists. Dems don't want to reform or simplify the tax code. President Obama's health care plan needs an additional 20,000 pages of legalease on top of the four thousand plus pages it took to obfuscate its original intent. The proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the US would generate tens of thousands of good paying jobs but Pres Obama wants additional time to study it(stalling a decision until after the election). We have been laying pipe in this country for 200 plus years but President Obama's postion is that it's better to deny families an opportunity for a good living than it is to alienate his environmental base.

Dems fight against every aspect of school choice that would allow inner-city poor kids to have an alternative to the union dominated public school system. Better to sacrifice another generation of kids than to forego union political contributions.

This whole situation would be comical if it weren't so harmful to individuals, families and the country at large.

Let's at least be honest with one another. Dems want a European-style welfare state (a proven failure) and Repubs don't. Dems want to extract more from the 1% that alreay pay approx. 40% of federal income taxes while protecting their base that pay zero (i.e. the bottom 45% that pay no federal income tax).

On the flip side, Pres. Bush was also a disaster. Wars, prescription drug plans unpaid for, etc.

Forgive me for being so blunt. We need a new paradym for governing.

[nate33]

Let's at least be honest with one another. Dems want a European-style welfare state (a proven failure) and Repubs don't. Dems want to extract more from the 1% that alreay pay approx. 40% of federal income taxes while protecting their base that pay zero (i.e. the bottom 45% that pay no federal income tax).

While I agree that the Democrats want an unsustainable European-style welfare state, the problem is that Republicans do too. Or rather, they don't have the stones to take away the government candy.

A Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich presidency will effectively be the same as an Obama presidency, but with different rhetoric. The welfare state will continue, nationalized health care will slowly but surely be implemented, and Wall Street will continue to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Nothing is going to change so long as the government can continue to borrow at low interest rates. And when that finally changes, there will be civil unrest as the Recipient Class finally discovers that all the promises made to them will be broken.

And trust me, those promises WILL ultimately be broken. It's a mathematical certainty. We are the brokest nation in history.

[hands11]

Here comes Rick Santorum. I said one of him or Michelle would make it to the final three, with MItt and Paul and it was more likely him then Michelle. Well here he goes. Michelle is still going to NH but come on girl, it over.

Man this is about to get really good. Newt basically concedes and says he is going after Mitt. You don't want a angry Newt dropping bombs on you. I expect Newt will get in some really good shots after Mitt just totally slammed him with ads.

Rick is a NE guy going into Mass. He has the momentum. Michelle is done so he picks up her little piece. He also gets some of the anti Mitt Newt vote. Paul will get some of that also. And he has Newt clearing the way for him.

Perry says he will return to Texas and evaluate things. Sounds like he is done. Suspending campaign.

Rick is the non rich dude non-establishment social conservative guy going against the rich rich dude with a machine behind him. Then you have the pure libertarian. Three distinct positions.

Going to be really fun to watch this. Paul will make this more interesting. I hope he sticks around so more people can hear what he has to say.

Down to Rich, Mitt, Paul and Huntsman since he is running in New Hampshire having skipped New Hampshire.

Rich is about to speech if anyone is interested in seeing the entire thing.

[hands11]

He is hitting a home run so far. He thanked his wife who looks like a sweetie, then God, then Iowa. Now onto a humble family immigration story. This is good stuff.

Opps, he talked to much. Should have stopped with the feel good stuff and walked off for people to float in that for a while. But he go into policy stuff and lost his feel good. I give him a mix grade. I think he lost an opportunity to do better if he walked off after the feel good stuff. Should have left the policy stuff for NH.

He closed the speech well when you got off policy and told his Chuck truck story. Then got onto his six kids and his disability child, dignity or life and dignity of ever American. More good stuff. End well was on a good note.

Mitt getting ready to speak now.
Wow, Mitt was not very good. No depth. All can political stuff. Plastic man showed up. Not nearly as good as Rich.

[BanndNDC]

Them Iowa republicans sure got played. Someone really needed to tell them that Paul is way more electable than Santorum. Santorum is a joke candidate (the type of candidate that would make all the Obama waverers not only vote Dem but also campaign for him) on the level of Bachmann. The only good thing for Republicans about a Santorum candidacy is it would bump Allen's chances of a comeback in Virginia. At least Paul would make things more interesting on a national level (and have a much better shot as a true outsider) than the mainstream media would have us believe. I guess this means that Romney is a lock (assuming Hunstman doesnt pull a major upset in New Hampshire) and we have an expensive ugly campaign to look forward to.

Then again maybe it is good for the Republicans to throw the evangelical/social conservatives a bone. It lets them nominate an unelectable to fuel resentment when the mainstream backlash and nastiness ensues (keeping them voting while tempering their demands) at the same time as potentially benefiting down ticket races (helping their tally in Congress at a time when its probably better (politically) long time to control Congress than the Executive (lot of things going wrong and gonna continue to go wrong economically). Sure ti dilutes the national brand but American voters are famous for short memories and general disinterest. Hmmm... the more I think about it the more I think it might just work long term for the republicans. Send up a sacrificial lamb, work on Congress (Santorun would give Allen the edge in Va (evangelical voters) and with the retirements they could easily pick up 3 seats in the Senate) and focus on 2016 (when the global economic stagnation should be beginning to end).

[fishercob]

Saw this on Facebook:
"I can't wait to see which variety of Pepsi is finally chosen to oppose Coke in a general election. No way I'll be tired of this after 11 months."

[montestewart]

Here comes Rick Santorum. I said one of him or Michelle would make it to the final three, with MItt and Paul and it was more likely him then Michelle.

Here's the closest I could find to that very precise prediction:

Rick and Michelle will share a voice until one drops out, then the other will get a bump.

Not quite the same thing, and given that another "CC," Rick Perry, was ahead of Santorum in the Iowa polls at that point and there was no other context to distinguish the two, how would anyone even know you were referring to Santorum?

[dobrojim]

Should be an interesting election year. Those that want a Euro-style welfare state (a proven failure but endorsed by President Obama and most on this board) against those that want free market enterprise. It is interesting that President Obama garners far more contributions from Wall Street than all Repubs combined. Democratic Sen. Schumer is the torch bearer for Wall Street give-aways.

Dems want more regulation. Why not add an additional 50,000 pages to the albatross of a tax code that already exists. Dems don't want to reform or simplify the tax code. President Obama's health care plan needs an additional 20,000 pages of legalease on top of the four thousand plus pages it took to obfuscate its original intent. The proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the US would generate tens of thousands of good paying jobs but Pres Obama wants additional time to study it(stalling a decision until after the election). We have been laying pipe in this country for 200 plus years but President Obama's postion is that it's better to deny families an opportunity for a good living than it is to alienate his environmental base.

Dems fight against every aspect of school choice that would allow inner-city poor kids to have an alternative to the union dominated public school system. Better to sacrifice another generation of kids than to forego union political contributions.

This whole situation would be comical if it weren't so harmful to individuals, families and the country at large.

Let's at least be honest with one another. Dems want a European-style welfare state (a proven failure) and Repubs don't. Dems want to extract more from the 1% that alreay pay approx. 40% of federal income taxes while protecting their base that pay zero (i.e. the bottom 45% that pay no federal income tax).

On the flip side, Pres. Bush was also a disaster. Wars, prescription drug plans unpaid for, etc.

Forgive me for being so blunt. We need a new paradym for governing.

You repeat this mantra of democratic socialism = failure yet based on a
number of objective measures, including health and happiness of their
citizens, they are doing better than us, current problems notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the argument as you state it creates a false dichotomy
as if the welfare-state proponents were absolutist socialists. They're not.
And few outside of complete zealots want completely unregulated free
markets. It's not a practicable solution. And virtually no economy on earth
is at either extreme.

Re- Regulation,

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/10/27 ... gulations/

For his critics on the right, it has become a mantra: President Obama is the most anti-business president in history. But a new study of government data finds that Obama has enacted fewer rules on business than his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

To date, the administration of George H.W. Bush holds the single-year record for government regulatory costs on business. Under the elder Bush, those costs came to $20.9 billion in today’s dollars, besting Ronald Reagan’s single-year total of $16 billion.

Re Obama the socialist - It's so bad that businesses can't make any money

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 ... 75814.html

Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous '50s, the Go-Go '60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Under another president, especially a Republican president, the data on corporate profits would be envied. George W. Bush, who dedicated a good deal of his presidency to tax cuts aimed at boosting business profits, probably would have loved such results. It took Bush nearly four years to post the gains that Obama has managed in less than half the time.

Keystone Pipeline - not considered the slam dunk of job creation by everyone

http://www.truth-out.org/keystone-jobs- ... 1325519341

The number of permanent jobs this is likely to create is a drop in the bucket
in the national employment context.

Re wealth inequality - is the level of wealth inequality even debatable at this
point in terms of its negative consequences on the economy of the US? I think not.
Perhaps you could explain for us why the current level and trends of inequality
are actually a good thing. I've yet to hear a coherent argument for the advantages
of this kind of level of inequality.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02 ... hart-graph

The third chart here I find particularly instructive as far as the politics of this issue
go. It shows that Americans don't realize that it is as out of balance as it actually is and
they would prefer that it be even better than they mistakenly underestimate it to be.

'Obamacare' was the preferred GOP solution to our abysmal health care situation,
until Obama proposed it. Then this PRIVATE sector policy became a gov't takeover
of healthcare replete with death panels poised to pull the plug on granny.

re public education - I find your statement to be extremely cynical. To state as
you did that Dems would prefer to collect campaign contributions rather than
improve public education is a perfect example of why we have political gridlock.

I applaud your statement that Bush was an abject failure. Too bad so many on
the right are still defensive, albeit quietly, about the disastrous impact the
activist supreme court decision in Bush v Gore had during the ensuing 8 years
of his presidency. I think we need to better illuminate the context of the
Tea Partiers who have taken over so much of the GOP since Obama election
by inviting them to tell us how great they thought things were during that time.

[dobrojim]

I SO want the pubs to nominate Rick, don't google me, Santorum.

The general public is just chomping at the bit to outlaw
contraception. Great idea that will fix virtually everything!

[fugop]

This should be an interesting election year. Those who want the United States to become a theocratic empire (a proven failure, but endorsed by Rick Santorum and many conservatives) against those with a realistic appreciation of our national security interests. It is interesting that more theocrats oppose Obama because of his race and paranoid delusions about Islam, rather than his depressingly tepid opposition to senseless military engagements.

Republicans want more wars. Why not invade another random Islamic country? A trillion dollars wasted on an occupation of Iran, justified by questionable PR about WMD programs, obfuscating the actual intent. A picture is worth a thousand words, but I'm not sure how much a powerpoint presentation based on intel from "curveball" is worth.

Republicans fight against every effort to improve public education that doesn't ruin labor unions. Better to sacrifice another generation of kids than tolerate collective bargaining.

This whole situation would be comical if it weren't so harmful to individuals, families and the country at large.

Let's at least be honest with one another. Republicans want a theocratic empire (a proven failure) and Democrats don't. Republicans want to extract more resources from the rest of the world (they've already sucked much of America dry) for our 1% that already enjoy ~40% of our national wealth while neglecting the issues confronting 80% of our citizens.

On the flip side, President Obama has been a disappointment. Failed to jail a single Wall Street criminal, extended Bush tax cuts, etc.

Forgive me for being so blunt. We need a new paradigm for governing.