NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[dw914er]

Thoughts....

Republicans only want to cut expenses.

Democrats are willing to cut expenses, but want to raise revenue as well, as a compromise.

People talk about cutting expenses, but in general, they are actually just shuffling money from one federally funded program to another. For Republicans, the spending changes they propose do not align with the amount of revenue cuts they're making.

 

[ColoGI]

As someone who leans more libertarian, it proves the point that the democrats are not willing to compromise.

LOLz. The comedy genre of Internet Performance Art is quite good today. Well done humor!

 

[Blide]

As someone who leans more libertarian, it proves the point that the democrats are not willing to compromise. If there is already a point that they can truly agree on, cutting spending, then why don't they just start there.

That's what ended up happening otherwise the US would have defaulted. The reason the blame falls on the Republicans in this case was because they came up with some arbitrary number for savings that they insisted on seeing. They wouldn't agree until they reached that number without any revenue increases.

I'd also like to point out that increasing revenue isn't necessarily the same as increasing taxes. Cutting subsidies and loopholes means someone's tax burden could certainly increase but it's not quite the same as increasing taxes.

 

[wahday]

If both want to cut expenses, why don't they just start there? Baby steps... (and do it with a bill that does not include ANY pork and only does that one thing... cut expenses)

This is not quite the way I would characterize the disagreement between the parties. The Republican complaint has been that Democrats just want to create revenue for their “welfare state” by raising taxes without cutting spending (as in “those $%&! tax and spend liberals!”). So, if the Democrats say, ok, we’ll cut spending, but we also need to raise revenue, is that not a compromise? Where have the Republicans comprimised? What if they said, ok, we need to cut spending, but we will consent to some increases in tax revenue as well? That would seem like the parties meeting halfway to me…

Indeed, there were some within the Republican party willing to do this, including Boehner. But it was Ryan and some other more hardline congresspeople that stymied the emerging deal with the administration on a "no compromise" principle.

Then Reid proposed a bill that was promptly shot down by House Republicans (and some Democrats who felt the bill pandered too much to the Right). It looked like this:

SPENDING CUTS
●The bill includes $2.2 trillion in spending cuts.
●Would not raise taxes or change major benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.
●Would set up a joint committee to find additional savings in areas like health benefits and the tax code. The committee’s findings would get an up-or-down vote in Congress by the end of the year.
●Would cut $752 billion from discretionary programs over 10 years.
●Envisions a discretionary level of $1.045 trillion for the coming fiscal year, $4 billion less than current levels.
●Caps military and security spending for the coming two fiscal years. Republicans have generally resisted cuts to military spending.
●Would count an anticipated $1.044 trillion reduction in war spending as savings. Many Republicans have derided that as “smoke and mirrors” accounting because war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to decrease anyway.
●Would count $376 billion in savings from reduced interest payments
●Would save $11 billion from reduced crop subsidies

Sounds plenty compromising to me. It even says NOT to raise taxes!! Heck, this looks like a Republic spending bill proposal from the late 1980s (except maybe for the cap on military spending...)

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

As someone who leans more libertarian, it proves the point that the democrats are not willing to compromise. If there is already a point that they can truly agree on, cutting spending, then why don’t they just start there. Additionally, I would want it to be in a bill that has no pork. I would venture to guess that neither side is willing to do that.

I doubt that the level of spending cuts that they are willing to agree on will suit what I believe but at least it is a step in the right direction. And where you state “increase revenue” first of all, let’s call it was it is a tax increase, secondly, it sounds like you want the government to be run like a business.

Ok-I'll call you on that point. In a cut only approach, specifically list what you would cut. Don't say "across the board cuts", specifically list the programs and the amounts.

 

[michaelskis]

Ok-I'll call you on that point. In a cut only approach, specifically list what you would cut. Don't say "across the board cuts", specifically list the programs and the amounts.

Everything....

Except those expressly permitted under Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution.

Why we are at it, I would eliminate the federal reserve, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and overturn the 1936 Butler v. The United States Opinion which changed the definition of General Welfare.


But we are talking about the cuts that both the republicans and democrats both agree need to happen. Those are only a fraction of what I think should be cut but it is a start.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Everything....

Except those expressly permitted under Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution.

Why we are at it, I would eliminate the federal reserve, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and overturn the 1936 Butler v. The United States Opinion which changed the definition of General Welfare.


But we are talking about the cuts that both the republicans and democrats both agree need to happen. Those are only a fraction of what I think should be cut but it is a start.

Again-list the programs and the dollar amounts. You're still hedging, largely generalizing and spouting ideology.

But I'll play along-you would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration, the Interior Department, etc....

 

[mgk920]

The big item that I'm not getting is 'increase/decrease revenue'. We all want revenue to the government to be able to meet expenses, but how does one REALLY increase or decrease revenue? Too often, the most effective way to decrease overall revenue is to increase overall tax rates - increasing the rate at which wealth is taken from the private economy works to decrease the amount of taxable activity, shrinking the tax base, and vice-versa.

Want to 'increase revenue'? Decrease the overall tax rate and the resulting increase in the amount of taxable activity will increase overall tax revenues (it worked in the early 1960s and early to mid 1980s).

Again-list the programs and the dollar amounts. You're still hedging, largely generalizing and spouting ideology.

But I'll play along-you would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration, the Interior Department, etc....

He already did, read the list in Article. I. Section. 8.

Of the two you listed, the first (the FDA) is covered under "regulate Commerce... ...among the several States'' in Article. I. Section. 8. and the other is covered under Article. IV. Section. 3. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...." and referenced to in the final sentence in Article. I. Section. 8.

Both are very tiny line items in the Federal Budget (or beyond embarrassing lack thereof).

Mike

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

The big item that I'm not getting is 'increase/decrease revenue'. We all want revenue to the government to be able to meet expenses, but how does one REALLY increase or decrease revenue? Too often, the most effective way to decrease overall revenue is to increase overall tax rates - increasing the rate at which wealth is taken from the private economy works to decrease the amount of taxable activity, shrinking the tax base, and vice-versa.

Want to 'increase revenue'? Decrease the overall tax rate and the resulting increase in the amount of taxable activity will increase overall tax revenues (it worked in the early 1960s and early to mid 1980s).

Mike

Not to pop your balloon, but didn't Reagan raise taxes? Further, what increases taxes is people spending money. This increases the economic output and circulates money through the economy. When people stop spending money is when the economy grinds to a halt. This in turn decreases revenues. Studies have shown that taxes actually has little to do with it, except in extreme situations.

 

[michaelskis]

Again-list the programs and the dollar amounts. You're still hedging, largely generalizing and spouting ideology.

But I'll play along-you would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration, the Interior Department, etc....

It is quicker to list what I would keep.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If it is not listed above, it gets cut.


But... We are not talking about me. What programs have the democrats suggested cutting. Let's cut them!

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

It is quicker to list what I would keep.


If it is not listed above, it gets cut.


But... We are not talking about me. What programs have the democrats suggested cutting. Let's cut them!

Again, list specific departments and dollar amounts. Only thing you are doing right now is hedging and spouting ideology. The burden of proof is on you since you are the one saying cut the programs.

 

[michaelskis]

Again, list specific departments and dollar amounts. Only thing you are doing right now is hedging and spouting ideology. The burden of proof is on you since you are the one saying cut the programs.

You know what, your right. Let me download the national budget, list almost all of the departments and 100% of the funding for those budgets. Since it is going to take a while, I will get back to you in a few days.

While we are waiting, why don't you share your personal ideas on how to prevent the US from total destruction.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

You know what, your right. Let me download the national budget, list almost all of the departments and 100% of the funding for those budgets. Since it is going to take a while, I will get back to you in a few days.

While we are waiting, why don't you share your personal ideas on how to prevent the US from total destruction.

While you are at it, explain how you are going to replace the services those departments provide. Personally, I don't think we are heading toward total destruction. I have faith in God, America and the American people. We have survived far worse than this.

 

[btrage]

As someone who leans more libertarian, it proves the point that the democrats are not willing to compromise. If there is already a point that they can truly agree on, cutting spending, then why don’t they just start there. Additionally, I would want it to be in a bill that has no pork. I would venture to guess that neither side is willing to do that.

I doubt that the level of spending cuts that they are willing to agree on will suit what I believe but at least it is a step in the right direction. And where you state “increase revenue” first of all, let’s call it was it is a tax increase, secondly, it sounds like you want the government to be run like a business.

I'm not sure you're getting it.

Democrats agreed to much greater spending cuts than they would have preferred. They compromised. What did the GOP compromise on? Nothing. They were unwilling to compromise.

 

[imaplanner]

Gary Johnson 4 prez!!!


And I agree with mskis. It's too hard to figure out what to cut and stuff, but we should do it, whatever it is.

 

[Tide]

DNC week:

First off, the president's nomination speech will be up against the MTV Movie Awards on Thursday the 6th. Great planning with one of your key demographics.

Second:

Obama's largest crowd this year was 14,000 at Ohio State BOA Stadium holds 74,000. In poor man's math that's 60,000 seats to fill. Now I know it's the DNC so they'll do better than 14,000 base attendees, but they're planning on bussing in students and black parishoners from NC and SC to fill it out.

From: http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...-hope-convention-will-help-sway-v-ar-2570047/ "Obama will largely be responsible for generating that momentum. He will close the convention Thursday night with a speech at an outdoor football stadium, just as he did in 2008. Mindful of the comparisons to four years ago, Obama's campaign is scrambling to ensure that the 74,000-seat stadium is filled to capacity. The largest crowd Obama has drawn during the 2012 campaign is about 14,000 people, far less than the crowds he attracted in the 2008 campaign."

And the NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...on-held-outdoors-rain-shine-article-1.1150555 "Four years ago, the party had no trouble filling Denver's Invesco Field. But this year, with enthusiasm surrounding the Obama campaign slightly flagging, there have been concerns that the stadium could be tough to fill.
Democrats currently plan to bus in students and volunteers from all over North Carolina to ensure that there are not empty seats during the President's speech - a visual which Republicans would seize upon."

Plus, throw in the weather concerns: Currently High 89 Low 69 with a 30-60% chance of T-Storms.


Just throwing this out there, it will be interesting to see what holds up come Thursday with this in mind.

 

[michaelskis]

Gary Johnson 4 prez!!!

It is a difficult choice. If trends continue, he is going to take a good portion of the Romney votes and Obama will win. However, if Obama wins and Johnson as a decent turnout, then perhaps it will send a message to the GOP that they need to change their platform a bit to be a contender again.

I know a bunch of people who are going to vote for Johnson because even though he has absolutely no chance of winning, he is the candidate that closest meets their beliefs. They are also willing to risk things getting worse for the next 4 years if there is a chance that it will make a difference in 2016.

For me, I have not decided if I will go with Johnson or Romney.

 

[Blide]

Was reading how the Constitution Party candidate is pretty popular in Virginia. There was a poll a couple months back showing him at 9% which would indicate to me that perhaps Virginia isn't a legitimate battleground state since almost all those votes would come from Romney. The Constitution ticket did something similar in Colorado's 2010 Governor race in which their candidate took 36% of the vote. Republicans almost got themselves relegated to third status after getting 11% of the vote.

 

[ColoGI]

Just throwing this out there, it will be interesting to see what holds up come Thursday with this in mind.

Rest assured, the attendees won't be old, tired, frowning white people struggling to get excited. And the speakers won't be spewing a long string of lies.

 

[Tide]

Rest assured, the attendees won't be old, tired, frowning white people struggling to get excited. And the speakers won't be spewing a long string of lies.

You may be half right - on the first half.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

For me, I have not decided if I will go with Johnson or Romney.

Gee-there's a suprise.

 

[ColoGI]

Rest assured, the attendees won't be old, tired, frowning white people struggling to get excited. And the speakers won't be spewing a long string of lies like the Repubs just did. .

You may be half right - on the first half.

You're right. FIFY. They'll be lying, but not completely and utterly like the RNC last week.

 

[Hink]

Michelle Obama is a classy woman. I think it is pretty bad that the right like to use her as political fodder, but she gave a pretty classy speech last night....

"Being president doesn't change who you are. ... It reveals who you are."

I might not love President Obama, but I can respect the First Lady's speech. It is funny to actually see someone have at least what seems like real emotion in politics.

 

[Mastiff]

It is a difficult choice. If trends continue, he is going to take a good portion of the Romney votes and Obama will win. However, if Obama wins and Johnson as a decent turnout, then perhaps it will send a message to the GOP that they need to change their platform a bit to be a contender again.

I know a bunch of people who are going to vote for Johnson because even though he has absolutely no chance of winning, he is the candidate that closest meets their beliefs. They are also willing to risk things getting worse for the next 4 years if there is a chance that it will make a difference in 2016.

For me, I have not decided if I will go with Johnson or Romney.

I am so sick to death of the "wasted vote" bullshit. And I'll tell you, I intend to "waste my vote" on the person I think will do the better job. Period. If more people would "waste their vote" like me, maybe we finally get a person interested in fixing the problems. If we finally "waste our votes" for Congress, maybe we get independents and others "fringe parties" willing to vote for the good of the nation and not a R or D party line that has the simple and inexcusable intention of making the "other" party look bad. These clowns play the American public like a fiddle, and voting for any of them just makes you clown shoes. Without a fundamental change to our current system, things will continue to get worse, and the only way to get those changes are to oust those responsible. Who are they? The ones who have an R or a D by their name.

/rant

 

[imaplanner]

Michelle Obama is a classy woman. I think it is pretty bad that the right like to use her as political fodder, but she gave a pretty classy speech last night....

"Being president doesn't change who you are. ... It reveals who you are."

I might not love President Obama, but I can respect the First Lady's speech. It is funny to actually see someone have at least what seems like real emotion in politics.

I'm not a huge fan of Prez Obama, but Michelle is pretty awesome. I don't understand how so many people can hate her so much.

 

[Brocktoon]

It is quicker to list what I would keep.


If it is not listed above, it gets cut.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


But... We are not talking about me. What programs have the democrats suggested cutting. Let's cut them!

So do we eliminate the Army (specifies can raise armies but does not explicitly allow for a standing army like it does for the Navy), Air Force, CIA, NSA and Veteran's Affairs since they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? If you do a little homework you will learn why you want your intelligence apparatus under civil control rather than exclusively military control. I guess those duties could be delegated to the militias once we repeal the Militia Act of 1903 that established the national guard system assuming of course one or many state militias would want to maintain such a program.

 

[Mastiff]

I don't understand how so many people can hate her so much.

Replace "people" with "rednecks" and ask yourself again.

 

[michaelskis]

So do we eliminate the Army (specifies can raise armies but does not explicitly allow for a standing army like it does for the Navy), Air Force, CIA, NSA and Veteran's Affairs since they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? If you do a little homework you will learn why you want your intelligence apparatus under civil control rather than exclusively military control. I guess those duties could be delegated to the militias once we repeal the Militia Act of 1903 that established the national guard system assuming of course one or many state militias would want to maintain such a program.

Let's reset for a moment and forget everything you know about the US government and think in terms of the writers of the constitution. In the late 1700's an "army" was an organized group of armed persons trained in combat. A "navy" is a fleet of boats.

So what it actually says is yes, you can have "and support" an army (covers all armed forces) but that no funding can be for a duration of more than two years.

 

[michaelskis]

One of the questions of this upcoming election is regarding Iran and Israel and the continued tension between the two countries.

What do you think that President Obama would do if reelected in terms of these two countries? What do you think that Mitt Romney would do if elected in terms of these two countries?
Do you think either would move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Will either take military action against Iran to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons? Will either do anything at all?

Interesting.... Looks like Obama agrees that Jerusalem should be the capital. LINK

Now I wonder if they will move the embassy there.

 

[Blide]

Now I wonder if they will move the embassy there.

Very unlikely considering the costs involved and how it'd significantly reduce the chance of ever achieving Mideast Peace. Also the official US position on Jerusalem's status is different than both parties' platforms.

I honestly think Obama forcing the change was just political posturing. He knows nothing will happen so why not pander to Jewish voters?

 

[Planit]

here's another winner

Federal student loans are unconstitutional and put the country on a path toward a WWII-style Holocaust, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) told his constituents yesterday

 

[Brocktoon]

Let's reset for a moment and forget everything you know about the US government and think in terms of the writers of the constitution. In the late 1700's an "army" was an organized group of armed persons trained in combat. A "navy" is a fleet of boats.

So what it actually says is yes, you can have "and support" an army (covers all armed forces) but that no funding can be for a duration of more than two years.

That sounds a lot like you are interpreting the document and applying modern values. The founder were very leery of a standing army. That is why they are referred to as armies in plural or army in lower case to an effort to not require a standing federal Army. Furthermore the Constitution required well regulated militias and not a standing federal army was very intentional. The framers remember how Oliver Cromwell used a British standing army to create a protectorate or military dictatorship. Navy was different since you cannot raise a navy quickly like you can in army and was essential for protecting trade. As for the Air Force I am not arguing it should not exist but should it be a separate branch or should it part of the well regulated militias as provided for in the Constitution if you go by the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

What about the intelligence community? It is vital to our national defense but leaving it to the military during peace time proved tragic... best example was the time between WWI and WWII. George Washington was very aware of the value of spies and intelligence both in military and diplomacy.

 

[michaelskis]

That sounds a lot like you are interpreting the document and applying modern values. The founder were very leery of a standing army. That is why they are referred to as armies in plural or army in lower case to an effort to not require a standing federal Army. Furthermore the Constitution required well regulated militias and not a standing federal army was very intentional. The framers remember how Oliver Cromwell used a British standing army to create a protectorate or military dictatorship. Navy was different since you cannot raise a navy quickly like you can in army and was essential for protecting trade. As for the Air Force I am not arguing it should not exist but should it be a separate branch or should it part of the well regulated militias as provided for in the Constitution if you go by the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

What about the intelligence community? It is vital to our national defense but leaving it to the military during peace time proved tragic... best example was the time between WWI and WWII. George Washington was very aware of the value of spies and intelligence both in military and diplomacy.

No, this is based on the founders interpretation if the constitution. I would suggest that you read federalest paper 26.

As for intelligence, even as you noted, it was and should be a component of the military (or Department of Defence as we call it today).

 

[ColoGI]

Federal student loans are unconstitutional and put the country on a path toward a WWII-style Holocaust, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) told his constituents yesterday

The rump wing of that party is going to ruin it. BushCo chased the rest of the smart people away and now all they have left is these losers. The national candidate and his election staff is third-rate. Just collapse already so we can have a decent opposition party!

 

[Hink]

You want to know why the R's are most likely going to lose this election?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...lect-president-according-rush-limbaugh/56843/

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ibya-media-20120913,0,2719146.story?track=rss

http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-chicago-teachers-strike-obama-romney-2012-9

Look no further than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the other hate mongering radio talk hosts. Although I can't stand Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, they aren't even on the same level as these idiots.

Rush Limbaugh. "What if Ayman al-Zawahiri and other Al Qaeda leaders gave up Osama bin Laden for the express purpose of making Obama look good?" Limbaugh asked his listeners Wednesday. "Giving Obama stature, political capital? 'Obama got Osama!' I mean, really."

The Republican party needs to focus on Fiscal issues, remove the blowhards and clearly distance themselves from said radio hosts, and then attempt to create a party that doesn't focus on social issues or religious issues. THAT would be a conservative party that has a shot at winning.

I look forward to what happens to the party if they lose. Will Rush win, and try and make Romney out to be not conservative enough and THAT is why he lost. Or will the rational republican emerge and we will see the shedding of the dead weight in the party and a new phoenix emerge that can focus on real issues.

I obviously hope for the ladder, but expect the former.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I look forward to what happens to the party if they lose. Will Rush win, and try and make Romney out to be not conservative enough and THAT is why he lost. Or will the rational republican emerge and we will see the shedding of the dead weight in the party and a new phoenix emerge that can focus on real issues.

I obviously hope for the ladder, but expect the former.

I fear you may be right about the former.

It really is a shame that Jon Huntsman had to bow out so early. In his interviews since, he has hardly been a ringing endorsement of Romney. It is quotes like this:

I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States — a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits.

and the fact that he was able to serve successfully on the Federal level under different parties that makes me think he could have been a viable alternative (and may be an alternative in the future).

He had approval ratings that tapped 90% on occassion in Utah as governor and left office with an 80% approval rating, meaning that his approaches were generally moderate (or at least moderate enough) to pull support from both sides. While he did lean toward restricting abortion, I don't think he would do so on a Federal level and would likely leave it as a silent issue. He supported a civil union bill--which would be a step in the right direction and took some guts in conservative Utah. He believes in climate change. He believes evolution & religion are not mutually exclusive concepts. He has obvious foreign policy credibility & understanding, particularly regarding China. He responds intelligently to stupid things said by his Republican counterparts.

I'm not sure he has the charisma to lead creation of a 3rd party, but he could potentially be a 3rd party presidential candidate at some point. Maybe its because I have a high appreciation for technocrats like him that can remove personal feelings & political expediency from the decision-making process, focusing instead on rational approaches & reason.

 

[Blide]

I honestly think the Republican Party over the next decade will go back to being a permanent minority party like it was prior to the 1990s. I just don't see a third party forming when Democrats are so willing to take in moderates.

 

[Maister]

Botched campaigns, skullduggery, manuevering, and other political foibles

Whether or not Romney's '47%' comments and ensuing followup will end up costing him the 2012 Presidential election remains to be seen, but at this point it feels powerfully like a Mistake, and it's this sort of phenomenon this thread intends to examine and discuss.

What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

For the record, I doubt anyone would dispute that the award for Biggest Campaign F-up goes to Richard Nixon, who managed to get himself booted from office after winning the 1972 Presidential election by a landslide.

A strictly middle of the road political campaign screw-up I recall was the Dukakis tank photo op. Up til then, there was a perception the guy was wimpy on defense but the unbelievability of the photo actually made that perception worse.

 

[Hink]

Bush II. Mission Accomplished.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

How about H.W.'s "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" pledge during his first campaign? That pretty much sunk his re-election effort a few years later after taxes were raised.

 

[ColoGI]

What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

.

Just in terms of pure campaigning, this rich a--- is going to go down in history as one of the worst national campaigns ever in the US.

Other than that, my campaign disasters - I'd say Nixon's first televised debate, Dukakis' bobblehead tank ride, Gary Hart sailing with a babe in view of the paparazzi, McCain's VP nomination disaster, Kerry not b---slapping the Swift Boaters like they deserved. Skullduggery would have to be anything Rove did, esp his whispering campaigns, and for me the worst was what was done to Max Cleland. But there are so many in that category, including the Rs' voter suppression efforts which are harmful to the country.

My dad was a campaign manager for ~ 2 decades, mostly Republicans. I can hear him spinning in his grave at the sheer incompetence on display this year.

 

[Blide]

Lets not forget McCain randomly deciding to suspend his campaign. I'm still not really sure what he thought he'd accomplish by doing that.

 

[Maister]

Lets not forget McCain randomly deciding to suspend his campaign. I'm still not really sure what he thought he'd accomplish by doing that.

I obviously can't speak for McCain but I'm guessing his intent was by making a public demonstration that he was willing to focus all of his attention on dealing with the impending economic crisis - a very real problem instead of the usual political posturing one sees during campaigns - it would hopefully be perceived by the public as being somehow the ultimate hallmark of LEADERSHIP (see, he values fixing the country's problems at the expense of his own campaign). That was my read anyhow.

Any boomers/X'ers have fond memories of Jimmy Carter's decision to do the Playboy interview?

 

[Gedunker]

I'd have to say McGovern with Thomas Eagleton, though to be fair, conventions were entirely different beasts then than now.

[COUGH]HoosierDanQualye[/COUGH]

 

[Maister]

I'd have to say McGovern with Thomas Eagleton, though to be fair, conventions were entirely different beasts then than now.

Funny you should mention the Eagleton affair, this morning I happened to read an online article about the historic evolution of party conventions and was struck by how the author did NOT make any mention of the role that incident played in helping shape the national conventions into the highly scripted events they are today.

 

[michaelskis]

Whether or not Romney's '47%' comments and ensuing followup will end up costing him the 2012 Presidential election remains to be seen, but at this point it feels powerfully like a Mistake, and it's this sort of phenomenon this thread intends to examine and discuss.

What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

For the record, I doubt anyone would dispute that the award for Biggest Campaign F-up goes to Richard Nixon, who managed to get himself booted from office after winning the 1972 Presidential election by a landslide.

A strictly middle of the road political campaign screw-up I recall was the Dukakis tank photo op. Up til then, there was a perception the guy was wimpy on defense but the unbelievability of the photo actually made that perception worse.

Why is this not in the never ending political thread?

Every candidate screws up at some point. It is the level of the screw up and how the people react to it that makes the difference. Now in the era where so many people have a video & audio recorder in their phone, everything a person does could end up on the nightly news or some pundant's talk show.

 

[Maister]

Why is this not in the never ending political thread?
.

Moderator note:

good point. Merged.

 

[Hink]

What says the throbbing brian?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/singer-belkin-dadt-repeal-anniversary/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Do you think our country is less safe today because we allowed LGBT folks to serve openly? I know we talked about this last year when it was occurring and many of the military chimed in. One year later, it sure seems like it wasn't a big deal, and had no negative impacts.

I think this is a pretty good indication that our country is slowly getting over our hyper-fear of change. If the military can accept people for who they are, not who they love, then I hope (and even pray) that our country will follow, and allow for people of all sexual orientations to be equal under the law.

 

[wahday]

What says the throbbing brian?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/singer-belkin-dadt-repeal-anniversary/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Do you think our country is less safe today because we allowed LGBT folks to serve openly? I know we talked about this last year when it was occurring and many of the military chimed in. One year later, it sure seems like it wasn't a big deal, and had no negative impacts.

I think this is a pretty good indication that our country is slowly getting over our hyper-fear of change. If the military can accept people for who they are, not who they love, then I hope (and even pray) that our country will follow, and allow for people of all sexual orientations to be equal under the law.

Definitely less safe! I mean, all those GLBT folks who were serving, I mean…they’re still serving, so…and, well, recruitment is the same…and, you know, those two folks that resigned, and…cause, well. Its just less safe….

This is a real non-issue to me just as allowing women to serve was.

In the words of the late Bill Hicks “ANYONE who wants to serve in the military should be allowed in. End of f$%&*! Story…” Unless you don’t pass the physical…

 

[Hink]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/02/capital_gains_taxes_115635.html

This is the best article I have seen that describes why capital gains taxes are different from regular income. I wanted to get your thoughts on capital gains taxes, as I know many of you are much smarter than I when it comes to taxes and tax policy.

I don't know if I have an opinion on whether or not capital gains taxes should be lower than regular income or not. I think I can see both sides at this point.

Thoughts?