• Sharebar

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.

Comments (92)

  • Jimage's picture

    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.

  • In reply to Jimage
    wadtk's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    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.

  • In reply to Jimage
    bortz911's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    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.

    You are a close-minded douche. this is a self-fulfilling prophecy and is why we end up with a lemming like Romney at the forefront. "Centrists" like you are the reason the GOP is watered down and stands for nothing

  • In reply to Jimage
    mfoste1's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    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.

    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.

  • In reply to wadtk
    duffmt6's picture

    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to duffmt6
    wadtk's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

  • In reply to Brady4MVP
    TheKing's picture

    Brady4MVP wrote:
    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.

  • In reply to wadtk
    Jimage's picture

    wadtk wrote:
    Only reason why he won was because people thought he has the best chance of beating Obama.

    Revelation!

    wadtk wrote:
    He didn't win on principle.

    ???????

    bortz911 wrote:
    You are a close-minded douche.

    Compelling argument. Nice proofing.

    mfoste1 wrote:
    you sound like a broken record of the MSM.

    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?

  • In reply to wadtk
    duffmt6's picture

    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

    You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!

    Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?

    You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • In reply to Jimage
    Edmundo Braverman's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    None of you has answered my question: Why the Paul-or-nothing attitude?

    Because unless you love Obama, Ron Paul is the only other choice. All the other candidates are mirror images (albeit funhouse mirror images in some cases) of the guy in the White House. They're all corporate shills who won't make any meaningful change.

    And that's fine if you're happy with the status quo. Some of us aren't. And we'd sooner see the current clown continue his destructive trajectory than waste our vote on a Republican stuffed suit who is only going to do the same (but by God the gays won't get married!).

  • In reply to duffmt6
    TNA's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

    You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!

    Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?

    You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)

    Oh man, Duff Toast, I was easing off you bro, but you had to open your mouth again.

    All the taxes you mentioned are avoidable. You are not forced to pay anything. Health Insurance is FORCED on you. The government has no right to force me to insure myself. That is clearly a step toward socialism as is many of the things the government does.

  • In reply to duffmt6
    wadtk's picture

    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

    You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!

    Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?

    You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)

    Your logic falls apart so easily, my friend. I can decide whether or not I want to pay ALL of those taxes. Mandated insurance offers no choice and, as Hayek would say, is another step down the road to serfdom.

  • In reply to wadtk
    duffmt6's picture

    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

    You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!

    Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?

    You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)

    Your logic falls apart so easily, my friend. I can decide whether or not I want to pay ALL of those taxes. Mandated insurance offers no choice and, as Hayek would say, is another step down the road to serfdom.

    Since you quasi quoted Hayek it makes you sound so smart.

    Do you decide whether or not to pay income tax? Estate taxes? Payroll taxes? Sales taxes (depending on your state)? You can't avoid taxes. You are an idiot if you think you can. I don't see how paying a healthcare tax is any different.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to TheKing
    Brady4MVP's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    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.

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    ANT wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    duffmt6 wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    Jimage wrote:
    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_...

    I don't like Romney.

    My bad on the state, reading too many NH articles at the moment. There is absolutely no way you can argue that obamacare/romneycare is not socialist when the government forces you to buy something or taxes you more to pay for their program. Do you not know anything of F.A. Hayek, Von Mises etc?

    You read Von Mises!? You must be so smart!

    Since when is forcing someone to pay a tax considered the end all be all of socialism?

    You smoke cigarettes, you pay a tax. You drink alcohol, you pay a tax. You decide to rent, instead of mortgage your home? You pay more taxes. You refuse to buy health insurance, you pay a tax (and if you can't afford it, it's free!)

    Oh man, Duff Toast, I was easing off you bro, but you had to open your mouth again.

    All the taxes you mentioned are avoidable. You are not forced to pay anything. Health Insurance is FORCED on you. The government has no right to force me to insure myself. That is clearly a step toward socialism as is many of the things the government does.

    The government has the right to force you to insure your retirement though (SS)? And insure your healthcare in retirement (Medicare)? And in some states, insure your car? Even if you oppose the existence of these programs, I find the claims that RomneyCare or ObamaCare, of all things, is bringing us down the path of a socialist society, laughable.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to Brady4MVP
    TheKing's picture

    Brady4MVP wrote:
    TheKing wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    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!

  • In reply to Jimage
    wadtk's picture

    Jimage wrote:
    wadtk wrote:
    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 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.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    GSElevator: "Romney looks like a TV movie character about an HBS case study protagonist." Priceless haha

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to wadtk
    duffmt6's picture

    wadtk wrote:

    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.

    No you can't.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • Scott Irish's picture

    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.

  • In reply to wadtk
    duffmt6's picture

    double post

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to TheKing
    Brady4MVP's picture

    TheKing wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    TheKing wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    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!

    No, Obama had no executive experience whatsoever before becoming president. He is the first president since I think Calvin Coolidge to have never held a leadership position in either government, private sector, or the military. And yet, despite the incredibly thin resume and dubious associations with Chicago radicals, the liberal media salivated over him and crowned him as the new messiah. That is NOT what is happening with Romney. Voters may not be excited about him, but they look at the guy and think, "he seems smart, capable, and experienced. i could imagine him being president."

    Romney has actually been fairly consistent with regards to his healthcare plan. He has said that it made sense for the 8% of people in massachusetts who did not have health care but that it would not be a good policy on the national scale. Romney has stuck by this even though it would have made sense politically in the gop primary for him to disavow it.

    Moreover, conservatives have been remarkably disingenuous. Back in 2008 they were super pumped about Romney (it's funny how we have such short memories), and many labelled him as the "true conservative" in the race. Rush limbaugh even called Romney as the rightful heir to Reagan. Now they are singing a much different tune. What the heck changed since then? The healthcare bill was signed in 2006, NOT post-2008 primary. If they find the massachusetts healthcare bill so antithetical to conservative principles, they should have voiced that concern in 2007-2008.

  • TheKing's picture

    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:

    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?

  • KarateBoy's picture

    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.

    Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_KarateBoy_

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • ScoobyDoobie's picture

    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.

    Third prize is you're fired. You can get all A's and still flunk life.

  • TNA's picture

    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.

  • aempirei's picture

    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).

    My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    ANT wrote:
    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?

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • In reply to TNA
    duffmt6's picture

    ANT wrote:

    Congress has the power, not the President...It is exactly as the founding fathers intended.

    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.

    "For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

  • dazedmonk's picture

    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

  • aempirei's picture

    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

    My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.

  • wadtk's picture

    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.

  • In reply to aempirei
    Cardinal's picture

    aempirei wrote:
    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.

  • aempirei's picture

    So what you're saying is we need some elderly to die off before any type of voter change takes place?

    My name is Nicky, but you can call me Dre.

  • In reply to Edmundo Braverman
    lucrativ's picture

    Edmundo Braverman wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.

    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.

    "Kept feeding him dollars 'till it all started to make cents."

  • ScoobyDoobie's picture

    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.

    - I almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum
    - I'm going to drive the Duggar bus to pick up my Iowa supporters and take them out for a PTSD round of drinks. #headdesk
    - Okay. That's it. I'm buying a sweater vest. #itworkedforsantorum
    - Newt Gingrich just said he's fighting a corrupt system? I expect him to have two black eyes by sunrise. #historian

    Third prize is you're fired. You can get all A's and still flunk life.

  • In reply to dazedmonk
    canman's picture

    dazedmonk wrote:
    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.

    "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

  • In reply to Brady4MVP
    eokpar02's picture

    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Stop bitching and get behind Mitt Romney, so we can defeat Obama.

    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.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

Pages