Russ, is your point that the media only picks on conservatives or is your point that Republicans don't know what they want.

Regarding the 1st, I think the media picks on anyone it can, conservative, liberal or otherwise. One can argue that they are more likely to go after Republicans, but it isn't exclusive.

Regarding the 2nd, I think Republicans and Americans in general are looking for a strong leader, and Christie has that. That's why Trump, Bachmann, and Perry have had initial popularity. For the fight for the moderate wing of the Republican party, I'll take Christie over Romney based on leadership qualities. When Romney says something it feels like he gets it from a focus group. When Christie says something, it feels like it comes from his gut. (funny and true)

ray

Regarding the 1st, I think the media picks on anyone it can, conservative, liberal or otherwise. One can argue that they are more likely to go after Republicans, but it isn't exclusive.

At the moment republican candidates are lining up for consideration which invariably comes with scrutiny.
And its not if Obama isn't being criticized every single day. Even Michelle Obama gets criticized for her weight by Limbaugh...
Christie himself has mentioned his weght problem as one reason he doesn't want to run... Mostly because his weight creates health issues that are certain to be exacerbated by the stress of running a campaign and/or a Federal Administration.
I think Christie would have more chance with Independents and many Democrats than he would with the far right Republicans... And if elected he might have more chance actually governing than Obama has... Although if the far right continues to have the influence it does, and they don't sign on to him personnally becasue of his social views and willingnesss to compromise, they could still log jam his agenda .

Ray Jay wrote:Russ, is your point that the media only picks on conservatives or is your point that Republicans don't know what they want.

Monte, It was a combination of the media picking on stupid inane shit to make up a crisis, I think Perry's racist rock is an example of this, and that Republicans don't know what they want.

Ray Jay wrote:Regarding the 2nd, I think Republicans and Americans in general are looking for a strong leader, and Christie has that. That's why Trump, Bachmann, and Perry have had initial popularity. For the fight for the moderate wing of the Republican party, I'll take Christie over Romney based on leadership qualities. When Romney says something it feels like he gets it from a focus group. When Christie says something, it feels like it comes from his gut. (funny and true)

The problem is another Republican already running that can attract the same group of independents and conservative Democrats as Christie does but can be more attractive to the SoCon wing of the Republican party. He also has more experience in government then Christie does.

Don't get me wrong, I like Chris Christie, which gets me into a little trouble with my NJ pulbic school teacher wife, but he has the same problem that Barack Obama has and that is lack of experience. The sum total of Christie's governing experience is 3 years as Morris County Freeholder (in a state that follows home rule so county gov't has little authority)in the mid-90's and 2 years as Governor.

I mean seriously, 3 years ago we Republicans questioned the qualification to be President of a man with 11 years of elected office experience because he held no executive post and we want the "savior" of our party to be a guy with a total of 5 years elected office experience because he can tell people to "get the hell off the beach"?

Is Christie actually standing, then? I wasn't sure but I did see a piece about him at the weekend that was fairly negative (but did not mention his weight - more the conflict with the NJ teachers' union and with the State legislature over the budget), which made me wonder if it was part of a pre-emptive anti-"Christie12" move.

Do you think he'd have more of a chance than Huntsman, Russell?

danivon wrote:Is Christie actually standing, then? I wasn't sure but I did see a piece about him at the weekend that was fairly negative (but did not mention his weight - more the conflict with the NJ teachers' union and with the State legislature over the budget), which made me wonder if it was part of a pre-emptive anti-"Christie12" move.

He has not yet announced but insiders are saying he has started to reconsider making a '12 run. The articles we are talking about are move of a pre-emptive scare him out of it attacks.

danivon wrote:Do you think he'd have more of a chance than Huntsman, Russell?

Honestly, I am not sure if he has a better or worse chance. However, I think Huntsman might be the better all around Republican nominee. His stand on abortion, and marriage will appeal to the SoCon's while his other positions will appeal to the moderate R's, Independents, & conservative D's .

Archduke Russell John wrote:He has not yet announced but insiders are saying he has started to reconsider making a '12 run. The articles we are talking about are move of a pre-emptive scare him out of it attacks.

Either he scares easy, or he was not going to run...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard ... rence-live

Honestly, I am not sure if he has a better or worse chance. However, I think Huntsman might be the better all around Republican nominee. His stand on abortion, and marriage will appeal to the SoCon's while his other positions will appeal to the moderate R's, Independents, & conservative D's .

Christie was apparently joint top with Romney in a recent poll.

Interesting to see that Cain is making a good running - even if his distaste about "@#$!" led to claims of him 'playing the race card'.

Well, Owen, I don't think he was ever going to run but then that is just me.

rickyp wrote:Your founders didn't think that the great unwashed could actually be trusted with the important decision of choosing a President. Therefore let them select a committee of wise men to take on this task.
The electoral college is a way to legally disenfranchise the voter. (example: A democratic elector in, ignored the fact that he was elected to vote for Humphrey and voted for George Wallace...)
Its uneven application simply makes the math of voting even more uneven. Where 40% of the voters in California end up not counting towards the choice of president you've veered away from democracy.
One man, one vote is made a mockery by the electoral college.

So people are smart enough to become educated about directly electing a President but not smart enough to be educated about deciding on vaccinations?

Actually, we are not a democracy. We are a Federal Republic. What the Electoral College does is reinforces the Federalism part by not allowing the middle states being swamped by the large coastal populations.

archduke

So people are smart enough to become educated about directly electing a President but not smart enough to be educated about deciding on vaccinations

So people are smart enough to be educated on the benefits and dangers of vaccinations but they can't be trusted to be given equal weight with every other citizen in deciding their President?
I see the contradictions both ways... (Kind of inherent in the term. If I contradict you, you must contradict me...)
I do understand your point about the actual nature of your government structure. But in all the complaints about freedom and equality eroding, its seldom that strict constructionists remind everyone that equality in the polling station was never an intent of the founders.

rickyp wrote:So people are smart enough to be educated on the benefits and dangers of vaccinations but they can't be trusted to be given equal weight with every other citizen in deciding their President?
I see the contradictions both ways... (Kind of inherent in the term. If I contradict you, you must contradict me...).

But see I am not arguing to keep the electoral college because people are too stupid to directly elect a president so your response is answering a complaint not made isn't that a strawman.

And you also play your typical game of refusing to answer the question.

People are smart enough to become educated on electing a President but not smart enough to become educated about vaccinations.

Archduke Russell John wrote:So people are smart enough to become educated about directly electing a President but not smart enough to be educated about deciding on vaccinations?

I'm not sure that these are equivalent.

One is a decision about a specialist medical area, in which there is recognised expertise and a recommended course of action. The other is more nebulous, as there is no recognised set of experts who will say definitively who the best President is (this world not being that of the Platonic Republic).

One is a collective decision based on opinion on who is best to run the country (fettered by a Constitution, a legislature and public opinion on individual issues). The other is an individual or joint decision by parents about what to do for a particular child.

In one, if you make the wrong choice, you can at least try to undo it 4 years later. In the other, if you make the wrong choice it can affect your child for a lifetime.

Actually, we are not a democracy. We are a Federal Republic. What the Electoral College does is reinforces the Federalism part by not allowing the middle states being swamped by the large coastal populations.

To a point. Of course, when the Constitution was written, the USA pretty much was coastal. All 13 original states were coastal, and Vermont was the only landlocked one for a while.

danivon wrote:I'm not sure that these are equivalent.

I disagree. One is either smart enough to become educated and ask the correct questions of those specialist or one is not. One is either smart enought to become educated and ask the correct questions about a politician or one is not.

danivon wrote:To a point. Of course, when the Constitution was written, the USA pretty much was coastal. All 13 original states were coastal, and Vermont was the only landlocked one for a while.

perhaps but the point is still the same. Keep the smaller population states from being overwhelmed by the larger population states.

Today that would be to keep the central states from being swamped by the Northeastern and western coastal states. Back then it was to keep Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Conneticutt, the Carolina's and New York from getting swamped by Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Richmond.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:I'm not sure that these are equivalent.

I disagree. One is either smart enough to become educated and ask the correct questions of those specialist or one is not. One is either smart enought to become educated and ask the correct questions about a politician or one is not.

In that respect, yes. Although I suspect that the lines of 'smart enough' differ. My other points stand, however.

danivon wrote:To a point. Of course, when the Constitution was written, the USA pretty much was coastal. All 13 original states were coastal, and Vermont was the only landlocked one for a while.

perhaps but the point is still the same. Keep the smaller population states from being overwhelmed by the larger population states.

Indeed. Except that what happens in the Presidential election is that the smaller states are still rendered pretty moot once the medium-large ones are in place. That's why Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are important swing states.

I can see how it works for the Senate as a balance to the House. I can't see how it works so well for the Electoral College.

danivon wrote:ndeed. Except that what happens in the Presidential election is that the smaller states are still rendered pretty moot once the medium-large ones are in place. That's why Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are important swing states.

I can see how it works for the Senate as a balance to the House. I can't see how it works so well for the Electoral College.

Because the small population states tend to be more Red while the large population states tend to be Blue (notice emphasis on the tends) so that the medium sizes states make the difference. If you did a direct popular vote election for Presidient, those small and medium states get completely overwhelmed by the northeastern and western coast states.

One of my favorite pundits to read is Jay Cost. He used to write a blog at realclearpolitics but recently moved to The Weekly Standard. I find his articles to be well written and informative even when I may disagree with what he is saying. Here is an article that he published today where he argues with doing away with the modern Presidential Primary system in favor of a return to the old system where the state party leaders met at the national conventions and decided who would be the nominee.

Not sure what I think about it. I kind of like it for the reasons given, but something about it rubs me wrong. Other's thoughts?