Well, it was a fun election season kids. I guess we can get back to business now. If we learned anything from last night's photo finish in Iowa, it's that we've got another four years of Obama to look forward to. Could be worse, I guess.
In a desperate bid to remain even a little relevant, Iowa GOP commissioners managed to scare up eight last minute ballots for Romney to put him on top of the Jesus-Rode-Dinosaurs guy. I have to admit I laughed out loud a little at the video of Romney's Iowa team high-fiving after the result was announced. It's the political equivalent of the Broncos backing into the playoffs by losing to the Chiefs.
The clear winner last night was Obama. The Republican party is in a state of disarray that it hasn't seen since Bush I got his ass kicked in 1992. If you need proof, look no further than Democratic uber-operative James Carville saying it was the most satisfying Iowa result he'd ever seen. The GOP is obviously not ready for prime time.
Early word is that Rick Perry is out and Michelle Bachman isn't far behind, which is kind of a shame because they'll take a little of the freakshow cred with them. I personally would rather see all the candidates (save Ron Paul, of course) arrive at the finish line in a bloody pulp after having savaged one another for the better part of a year.
The Romney fans in the crowd better enjoy this while it lasts, because this will probably be the last thing he wins. Newt Gingrich's sociopathic ego will never allow him to admit that he finished a dismal 4th because of his own unelectability, and he's already focusing his wrath on Romney. You can expect some truly heinous shit to be revealed about Romney courtesy of Newt. Newt is gonna go scorched earth, trust me. He knows he can't win, but he's determined to take Romney down with him.
And then there's the Ron Paul crowd (myself among them). By garnering 23% of the vote, he more or less controls the GOP at this point. How can that be, you ask? His supporters will not support anyone else. The rest of the field is unacceptable to the majority of Ron Paul people, and come election day they just won't show up if he's not on the ballot. Obama wins in a landslide. I refer you again to 1992.
Hopefully Santorum's near win (well, let's face it, it was a win) was the last gasp of the religious fundamentalists who hijacked the party in the 1980's. Four more years of Obama might even be a good thing: he certainly has a knack for screwing up and I think we can reasonably expect that to accelerate over the next four years, plus it'll be another four years for old Republicans to die off and make room for the younger generation that actually knows WTF is going on and gives no sway to ridiculous non-issues like gay marriage.
I'm encouraged to avoid political discussions on the site and I make every effort to do so. But when a single party makes such an embarrassing statement like last night, I simply can't ignore it. You'd think after four years the GOP would have their game faces on.
And to think I spent five years as a registered Republican before Ross Perot showed me the light. I thought it was the other guys who were supposed to make you cringe.
I admire the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters, but he is unelectable in the general. He alienates too many of the centrists, many of whom would like a reason not to vote for Obama.
I'm surprised by how many RP fans see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. How would a moderate Republican - staunch supporter of free markets - not be more appealing to them than another 4 years of Obama? You might say social issues, but I'm not sure how anyone could think that the country's pressing problems are linked to social issues in any way.
People don't trust Romney. Look at the exit polls. Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama. He didn't win on principle. He socialized health care in NH. That's not social, it's socialism.
It was in MA. Also, like ObamaCare, hardly "socialist" if you actually look at what's in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
I don't like Romney.
Revelation!
???????
Compelling argument. Nice proofing.
Again, good argument.
I would like to see a rational explanation about how RP could be elected in the general. Please, break it down for me. None of you has answered my question: Why the Paul-or-nothing attitude? How do you not prefer Romney to Obama?
blah blah blah unelectable.........you sound like a broken record of the MSM. If I wanted to hear that bullshit I'll just turn on Fox.
http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romne…
Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.
You seem to like Romney for the most nebulous reasons. Being a good businessman does not equate to being a good President, we aren't electing a CEO of America.
Romney created Obamacare before it was Obamacare. Now he thinks it's bad and wants to repeal it...why? Because that's what the GOP base wants to hear. The man has zero convictions of any sort.
However, I hear he went on some really cool trips when he was in HBS, so I take all of that back.
You're right that being a good businessman does not necessarily mean he will make a good president. This is something that's almost impossible to predict given the complexity of the job. But Romney does have solid executive experience, something that I think is very important in preparing for the toughest executive job in the world. And Romney is a smart guy who is disciplined, thoughtful, and analytical. I don't worry about him making rash decisions like George W. Bush or losing self-control like Clinton. Will he be a transformational president like Reagan? Probably not. But if it's the choice between a competent moderate republican like Romney or 4 more years of Obama, I will gladly take the former.
Once again, why are you bringing up HBS? Your immaturity is quite staggering.
You sound like Obama supporters did in 2008 with the whole "he's thoughtful and analytical...I trust him to make rational decisions" argument.
Because Romney has no actual convictions and has flip flopped on some of his biggest achievements and positions from the time when he was Governor of Massacusettes, it forces his supporters to describe him with that sort of vapid non-sense.
You know damn well why I'm bringing up HBS when I reply to your garbage. Go work on your apps, you clown...the ski resort awaits!
Who's "we"? There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romney and Obama. America is going to stick with the devil it knows, bubba.
Well put Ed, there's nothing easier for the United states citizens to do than keep smelling the shit their used to smelling. Makes no sense to get a different smelling shit.
Yea, go hard homie!!!! Get your female ass in line so we can elect Obama's white version! You never know, I hear white people have better credit.
Obama went to Harvard Law and Romney went to HBS.
Serious Question: Who had more fun and got more ass in grad school?
Republicans primaries = a bunch fat blind kids attempting to rape a cat whilst being chased by a scared octogenarian homosexual in a priest costume.
I fail to see how Romney winning the Iowa Caucus (and eventually the nomination) is a clear victory for Obama. Romney always had the most money and was going to be the nomination since the start. Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorium are paving the way for an unscathed nomination. This is a carefully orchestrated effort by the Republicans.
I also don't understand how people cannot see the logic behind saying Ron Paul will not get the popular vote. It is as simple as looking at demographics and past voting behavior. Libertarianism is wonderful, but something that benefits those who are self reliant or educated. This idea that people barely hanging on give a shit about freedom or some other intangible, while they can't pay their electric is beyond me.
Romney is a flip flopper huh. So that is what makes him bad? I mean people hate the Tea Party for being ideologues and hard liners, but when someone can change their mind or side with opposition this is a fault?
Whatever. Romney is not perfect, but he is preferable to Obama IMO. Paul would be the best, but he can have more power not being President. He has rejuvenated the Libertarian movement and with his son can continue to do so.
Romney is the best candidate to defeat Obama. And I pray he does so.
Duff, remember- the austrian school saw the housing crisis a mile away. The "prime the pump-ers" did not.
income tax? Estate taxes? Payroll taxes? Sales taxes? Oh my!
I can choose not to have a job, not to own a home, not to rent a home, live in south dakota where there is no state income tax, barter at the local farmers market etc.
You are waging a losing intellectual argument, Duff.
You wouldn't last the winter in your libertarian/homeless paradise.
You are missing the point. Perhaps some would love to live in a society like that. You have no idea. In a free society we should have the ability to decide whether we want to live the way we are living. You (or some government bureaucrat) should not decide for me.
No you can't.
Don't be ignorant. I can do all of those things.
double post
GSElevator: "Romney looks like a TV movie character about an HBS case study protagonist." Priceless haha
This thread worries me more than the Iowa results. Everyone is all or nothing, and we're not willing to back a least worst candidate. So we will reelect Obama on principle. Super.
Brady:
I agree 100% that conservatives have been disingenuous with regards to healthcare reform. The reform bill that Romney passed in MA and the Obama passed isn't all that different from what the Republicans pushed for in the 1990s. It's a Heritage Foundation idea. It only became "evil socialism" and a black mark on Romney's record because Obama passed it, and virtually everything Obama does is hated by the GOP base.
Let's be clear, Romney has not been consistent at all. The entire argument that his plan is only good for Massachusetts and should not be implemented nationwide is one he invented when he realized how much the GOP base hates Obamacare. For evidence, see the following clip in which Romney was praising Obama's healthcare plan in 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/AFlIndO7h6Y
All the sudden, Romney is going to repeal it? That is pure pandering. As is his absurd and transparent flip flopping on social issues. How can anyone accurately judge this guy?
I'm not fan of Obama but what if the cure (Romney) is worse than the disease?
I know a lot of people accuse him of being a liberal at heart but what if he's really going to his the presidency to get his rich buddies richer at the expense of the rest of us?
You can't say that's not his character because his character is like playdough - it's whatever he thinks people want him to be! Just like campaign-Obama.
Certainly seems that way http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286
Yet... Obama is far from guilt-free himself http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
Like that one Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror Episode when aliens Kang and Kodos try to take over the world and abduct and morph into Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to ensure one of them gets elected. Then Homer exposes them during a campaign rally
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us. Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qk12ALX9fz8
RomneyCare is very different than ObamaCare. States can decide for themselves, but the Federal government has no right to force this on its citizens.
I don't agree with statewide healthcare either, but I can at least choose to not be part of that state. The Federal government is going to a whole other level.
@Duff - Just because we have already started down a path of socialism doesn't mean calling national healthcare a socialist thing is wrong. SSI was never meant to be a retirement program.
1) SSI is a tax, which allows the govt. to get around the issue. It is not paying into your retirement account or anything like that. It is simply a tax levied for a specific program.
2) SSI was called socialism when it was first rolled out and it is no different now.
SSI was never meant to be a pre packaged retirement account for people. People worked until they died or became disabled. Now people see it as a quasi 401(k).
National Healthcare is in the same vein. It will grow and expand and is nothing but the expansion of government power and taxation.
Likewise, health insurance is not a health savings account. I see more similarities than differences.
I still fail to see how "national healthcare" is in anyway an encroachment on the private sector as it currently stands. Telling people to buy health insurance from private companies? That's the big government overreach?
Romney will sign what Congress puts in front of him, simple as that. Conservatives control the House and most likely will win the Senate. Romney will do as they say.
Congress has the power, not the President. Why people don't realize this is amazing. It is exactly as the founding fathers intended. We focus so much on a figure head instead of the people who run the show. All I want is someone who will sign what is shoved in front of them.
Can't really agree with this. Ultimately, the president is a policy leader. The president doesn't use the veto often because rarely does anything get passed by both houses if a veto is expected. All this talk about ObamaCare and the Obama stimulus- are you really saying that those were Congressional bills?
Congress is also useless in foreign policy. Pretty much the exact opposite of what the "founders intended".
Also, Bush II set a pretty impressive precedent with the number "Executive Orders" issued that I don't forsee changing.
Congress is too screwed up to get anything done. The president is looked to for policy leadership.
The problem with the United States is that people believe that it is a two party system. The reality is that both dems and repubs are the exact same party except bought by different interest groups. Ron Paul will be my write in vote that is for sure. Ron Paul (who would never be allowed on the ballet because he doesn't walk lock step with the rest) has the young vote- who got Obama elected, independents, libertarians, and democrats who are pissed off at Obamas lack of spine. The good thing to come out of Ron Paul running and having ~23% of the vote is that it scares the hell out of the media and the government, which will allow for future independents to actually have a chance in the race, and allow the people to choose the candidate instead of the government controlled media propaganda machine. In order to get the US back on track we need a five party system- socialists, liberals, moderate, conservative, and libertarian. Until this happens the US will be the same one party system portraying itself as a two party system.
I really have to contest all this "every party is bought" comment. I mean like how the NRA "buys" the Republicans into supporting gun rights. Or how union members "buy" the Dems into supporting them. Or how farmers lobby for tax credits. Seems to me people only bitch about lobbyists when companies do it, but it is all kosher when the little guy joins up and throws their weight around.
The parties support different things. They battle out. Little gets done. Good. Countries are not speed boats. They are super tankers. It took years and a couple wars for this country to get where it is at. I am not looking for it to be revolutionized and changed in a blink of an eye.
How much more productive would this country be if we split it in half and put the RP supporters in one half and the Obama/Romney supporters in the other? It would be like the Americans steamrolling the Native Americans (not that I am proud, more so the uneven decimation).
Looks like I had it backwards, guys.
Bachman just pulled out:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/bachmann-drops-out-of-pres…
But Perry is still in:
http://news.yahoo.com/continuing-gop-campaign-texas-gov-rick-perry-twee…
And now Newt is joining forces with Santorum to destroy Romney:
So the clown car keeps on chugging.
Romney can't beat Obama
1) Evangelicals wont be enthusiastic about a mormon; even Obama is nominally christian 2) Minorities go Obama (see: Mormon church on black ppl, repubs on immigration) 3) Independents are unlikely to go for the 1 percenter with a consultant's intellectual 'flexibility'
Santorum might actually have a better shot, but I think Repubs might just be screwed.
Obama had a great presidency (in 2k8 we were nearly depressed and trapped in the middle east). He's also an incumbent money raising machine vs. either an unlikable Repub or a poorly funded, disorganized one. Sux to be GOP
Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. The national polls speak to this and your analysis is a bit off.
1) Evangelicals nor most republicans will be excited about Romney, however, they will rally around him to get the GOP in power and oust Obama. I don't know why you mentioned that Obama is a nominal Christian because I don't think anyone is stupid enough to cross party lines because of religion.
2) Minorities are for the most part liberal anyways, so you wouldn't expect them to go for Romney.
3) Neither Obama or Romney are joe the plumber. They are both from Harvard and fairly rich. Romney has a ton of "business" experience and that will play over well with the independents who expected so much of Obama. Romney will have a very good case to make when it comes to the economy and that will win over the independents.
Santorum's all about the social issues; this election's about the economy. He will get killed if he's up against Obama.
Evangelicals is media code for racist white people. They'll vote for Romney. Still, I agree with a lot of your sentiments. However, I think that Obama, overall, is a lazy person that is unwilling to compromise. This is why I would never vote for Ron Paul. The man is so tunnel-visioned it's frightening; his foreign policy is somewhat disturbing, mostly the part about pseudo-isolationism and acting like this is the 19th century. He is just a cranky old man that will just continue to whine when he doesn't get his way and will not look for ways to compromise. In Romney, I see a candidate who will be able to cooperate/compromise. Although this will only happen if we get that assclown John Boehner out of the way
So the fact that we now engage in perpetual warfare and militarism around the world in effort to prop up our faltering ( bankrupt) empire isn't "somewhat disturbing" to you? The fact that we lost 5,000 troops, and killed roughly 1million Iraqis in a war against a country that never attacked us isn't "somewhat disturbing" to you? Or that the same voices that called for war in Iraq/Afghanistan are now calling for a war with Iran? Is the concept of blowback not "somewhat disturbing" to you? Or that the President now has the authority to assasinate American citizens, do you not find that "somewhat disturbing"?
From 1850-1960, American voter turnout was between 70-80%, today it hovers around what, 30-35%? Imagine how easy it would be for Ron Paul to win if he could secure 80% of eligible voters aged 18-32? He would win in a landslide
Turnout for the past 2 elections was actually more like 60%, and the group that really turns out is the elderly.
Problem with this country is that we judge policy based on its merits, not on its results.
We MUST judge policy not by intention, but by results. Every single time the government gets into a market, costs explode. Education, health care, housing. By law, markets are supposed to drive costs down, not up. With the advent of new technology, costs should drop like a cannonball in a pool. The only reason why kids pay 200k for school is because the government gives them cheap, guaranteed money to bid up its price. The same will happen with health care.
Umm.... no. That is exactly what we do wrong. We judge policy based on (perceived outcomes) and not on the merits of the policy based on the information at hand. For instance, if the government had a grand idea to send out thousands of soldiers to look for buried treasure and managed to find a huge cache (bad example but it works), the policy would be lauded as a great success and whoever is in office would be labeled a hero, while those who (correctly) said the policy was idiotic and stupid would be dismissed. We LOVE and cannot help to give causal explanations for everything around us. We make up stories about our lives, friendships, careers, the stock market, the economy...... literally everything we think of is a story (at least in some rudimentary sense). It is extremely difficult not to think that way. The problem I see with current policy is that you cannot justify it (federal student loans, etc.) even proceeding the events, so if anything were to magically happen, then it should not be lauded as a success. The same goes for TARP and all the other government programs.
How does this nation judge policy based on results? If this were true, government would be out of the student loan business, health care, housing. The list goes on. You must have the blinders on if you think otherwise.
So what you're saying is we need some elderly to die off before any type of voter change takes place?
There is one candidate I would vote for besides Ron Paul- often forgotten Buddy Roemer who is the former governor of Louisiana. Here is some of tweets from last night. If you have twitter follow him, you will not regret it.
this whole forcing to buy healthcare is socialism argument is fkin retarded.
the state of US healthcare right now is fkin abysmal, its one of the most expensive in the world with utterly shitty results compared to european "communist systems". just adopt a european healthcare system swallow your socialism arguments and profit?
in before someone saying that wouldnt work cause the US is too heterogenous and big and mexicans need different healthcare which is too expensive and european solutions dont work
^^ Each state should decide what their healthcare needs are. Florida health care needs are different than Texas which is different from NY. The only way to drop costs is to allow people to buy health insurance out of state. This will create competition between the companies and eliminate state healthcare monopolies.
I would support Romney if he flip-flopped on issues that matter most (economic). Most of the controversy is over social issues. Look at Romney's economic plan; we might as well have Obama. At least with Obama, Republicans won't take the blame for failing to fix the economy (Romney's plan is as close to inaction as you could get and a resumption in growth would only be incidental).
He has made a very small commitment to lower taxes (cutting capital gains for middle-class and the same corporate tax cut as everyone else). The only good idea is his cap on spending of 20% of GDP, but that is so long-term that it will be abandoned quickly. Also, who knows if he'll even do what was included in his plan.
In my mind, the only good plan is Huntsman's.
I was wondering if somebody was gonna mention Buddy Roemer. He's actually another guy I would pull the lever for, but he's got even less chance than my guy.
Look for a Huntsmen/Roemer ticket in 2016 or 2020. In my opinion Huntsmen is being bred right now for the future presidency.
Obama is going to win, so if people can't deal with that they need to start working on passports to other countries, lol. I also love how we can all slam "obamacare" and social security without even a suggestion as to other solutions, we should just leave things as is, thats how the republicans would have it, complacency until our entire economic system goes down in flames. Also, if anyone thinks Ron Paul is electable in the general election, LOL.
p.s. Eddie non-issues such as gay marriage will always be brought up by republicans because why else would a poor or lower middle-class individual after his/her own interests ever vote for a republican other than HE KRISTIAN, LET ME BUY GUNZ, NEVA LET DOSE GEYZ MARRY.
We don't need to suggest an alternative. Why don't we allow people to save their own money for their own retirement? Doesn't that make sense? Why don't we end all the mandates from the FDA and HHS and allow an actual free market for healthcare? The problems are the result of government, not in spite of it.
Westsidewolf: "his foreign policy is somewhat disturbing, mostly the part about pseudo-isolationism and acting like this is the 19th century."
This is deceptive. The Army, Air Force, and Navy did not donate to Ron Paul, the money came from individual members. Given that our Armed Forces total almost 3 million mostly younger and conservative people, it's not such a shocker. To put the size of those donations in perspective, the grand total of military donations is only six times larger than a donation from Overland Sheepskin.
Because we have international economic and security interests. We aren't trying to change the regimes of 150 countries.
Are you saying we don't benefit economically from having an international military presence? Your plan would turn the US military into a mercenary force.
The industrial military complex benefits economically from international military presence not Americans. It only benefits the US because we have the biggest military in the world which makes countries very reluctant to attack on us. I don't see the military fixing the infrastructure of the US, instead they build roads and schools in Afganistan. It didn't take 50,000 troops to get Bin Laden, instead it took a US mercenary force to accomplish a decade old goal. The amount of innocent lives lost on both sides should be reason enough why the US should only send in elite forces to accomplish goals. Believe me I was all for the US military and it being the world police until I saw many friends come back with lost limbs and mental issues that will affect them for the rest of their lives (all while being ignored by veteran services). The military doesn't care about solders, instead you are a number that will be replaced. We have enough problems in this country that should be taken care of first and foremost, and I personally agree with Ron Paul (who was a flight surgeon) on this issue, he has seen the destruction first hand of what war does to people.
I was born and raised in Washington, D.C., I run a company here and have been in and around politics for 20 years. This thread is replete with some of the most moronic, ignorant political analysis I've ever read in my entire life. ANT is probably the only person who really gets it--a handful of others are on the right path, but most of you are straight up jackasses.
You sure you want to lead with that when you're trying to make a point about politics? I can't think of a better way to disqualify an opinion.
Hahaha such a good burn! Exactly what I thought! hahahahahahahaha
Yes, because we all know that Washington D.C. has been the hotbed of great ideas as of late.
Ah, so you're part of the problem.
Cool. Do you ever hang with Marion Barry?
I understand the support for Romney but Santorum finishing tied for first in Iowa has led me to completely lose faith in the American people.
^ Agreed, but I lost my faith in the American people some time ago, Santorum's "surge" just confirmed my beliefs.
What about this ? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/tea-party-mov…
McCain endorsing Obama... Freudian slip?
While the Republican primary has been volatile, I don't buy that it's a big boost for Obama. Remember last primary cycle when Obama and Hillary were going at it for months on end and people thought that would be a boost for McCain?
Romney/Jindal or Romney/Christie is my ticket.
I love Christie, but he would overshadow Romney, both literally and figuratively. I think it's going to be Romney/Rubio.
WTF.... come on America
Incidunt cupiditate dolorum molestias eum. Perferendis voluptatibus rem dolore. A qui at voluptatem odio nemo. Et placeat consequatur ut perspiciatis adipisci id aut consequatur.
Alias a et optio libero. In dolorem quae debitis ullam quibusdam in et ut.
Omnis ea qui laboriosam iure molestiae consequatur debitis. Corrupti eligendi qui ut quisquam. Nulla recusandae inventore accusantium voluptatibus non veniam. Deleniti in eos repellendus eum et rerum. Mollitia molestias est quis fugit adipisci facilis tempore.
Numquam corrupti ea impedit itaque labore velit. Quae est corrupti ab temporibus. Autem nostrum voluptate fugiat. Qui ad est maxime esse culpa eveniet et aut. Quidem occaecati consequatur saepe ut. Voluptatem provident a totam voluptas blanditiis debitis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Earum cumque et provident et sit. Totam quo distinctio hic dolor voluptatem qui necessitatibus. Quos ratione accusantium omnis ipsam soluta sequi error. Doloremque assumenda quia autem corrupti soluta rerum.
Enim ex similique eos molestiae iure. Quia quasi odit maxime animi sequi quaerat provident. Dolorum et odio dolor reiciendis quia dolores. Odit repellendus veniam nulla nihil aut omnis. Animi dolore assumenda pariatur autem impedit dolorem harum hic.
Nostrum similique cumque aliquid sed quos eius dolor. Quasi cumque eum accusamus provident enim qui.
Hic facilis expedita explicabo ut id harum. Ad modi et est beatae sequi fugit. Et eum et molestiae. Similique rerum officia eligendi at ipsam voluptatem alias aut. Voluptatum eius provident earum maxime.