Doctor Fate wrote:

geoganes wrote:I completely agree. I was going to say I couldn't think of a worse candidate, but then I thought about Cain, and then Perry, and then Bachmann, and its pretty stunning how poor the current Republican field is.

How short is your memory? How great was the guy who finished 3rd in 2008 for the Democratic nomination? Isn't he now facing jail time? How about Kucinich? Biden? Dodd (an unconvicted crook)? Gravel?

But they're Democrats. I was talking about the Republicans.

To be fair, I don't mind Mitt too much, and I actually like Huntsman, but after that the field drops off a cliff, not just unmemorable people who couldn't win, but Newt is the front-runner? If that happens I don't care what Mr. Obama does, he wins. What are the "faithful" thinking? Maybe you can help me out Steve: why is Newt the front-runner, and how long will he stay there?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

geoganes wrote:I completely agree. I was going to say I couldn't think of a worse candidate, but then I thought about Cain, and then Perry, and then Bachmann, and its pretty stunning how poor the current Republican field is.

How short is your memory? How great was the guy who finished 3rd in 2008 for the Democratic nomination? Isn't he now facing jail time? How about Kucinich? Biden? Dodd (an unconvicted crook)? Gravel?

But they're Democrats. I was talking about the Republicans.

Don't be confused. You're complaining about the GOP field (as if it matters to you, which we both know it does not). I'm saying the Democratic field in 2008 was not so great either. And, you guys won!

To be fair, I don't mind Mitt too much, and I actually like Huntsman, but after that the field drops off a cliff, not just unmemorable people who couldn't win, but Newt is the front-runner?

Trump. Bachmann. Perry. Cain. Newt. Will the pattern repeat? Here's what we know: not a single vote has been counted.

Further, it is not irrational to suppose Mitt could win Iowa. If he does, it's over before it's begun. Here's another scenario: Paul wins or finishes second in Iowa--that would massively change the race.

If that happens I don't care what Mr. Obama does, he wins. What are the "faithful" thinking? Maybe you can help me out Steve: why is Newt the front-runner, and how long will he stay there?

Why is Newt polling so well? Fairly simple: he's smart (no one can argue that); he debates well; he's given the press hell; he has not attacked other Republicans.

I think the press will finish him off before Iowa. Lobbying. Marital issues. Commercials with Pelosi. Global warming. Favoring individual mandates and death panels before he was against them. He is not a consistent conservative.

Besides, Santorum hasn't had a turn yet as the conservative, not-Mitt candidate. Everyone deserves a chance, apparently.

You may think Obama is a sure thing against Newt. Maybe. All I know is that his domestic record is not what he will be running on. His leadership is not what he will be running on. His pride in his country is not what he will be running on. He has to hope it's not someone vanilla. He has to hope it's someone easy to demonize.

That's pathetic.

Neal Anderth wrote:Take the Super Committee and it's 1.2 trillion in mandatory cuts over the next 10 years. You've been running 1.6 trillion annual shortfalls. How does it even matter who's captain of that ship?

This presumes no one will do differently than Obama. I reject that premise.

Has he made any sort of plan public? As far as I can tell, the strategy was this: either the Republicans agree to $1T in new taxes or we won't budge.

I think it makes a big difference who wins. If we have tax reform and real cuts in spending, we can actually pull out of the tailspin. If Obama wins, well, "Hello Greece!"

Doctor Fate wrote:Don't be confused. You're complaining about the GOP field (as if it matters to you, which we both know it does not). I'm saying the Democratic field in 2008 was not so great either. And, you guys won!

"You guys?" Come on, I've never voted in a Democratic primary, I've never been a registered Democrat, I've never called myself a Democrat, but I guess I should let you call me one? It's OK I guess, some people need to stick labels on people, but please call me a democrat, not a Democrat.

I have a client who became a sorta friend over the years who ran for mayor of the city where he is council president, and he was beaten in the Democratic primary by one of the most corrupt a**holes of the hopelessly corrupt Westchester County Democratic Party machine, and he got beat largely because the other side cheated (took too much money from different labor groups and other campaign violations, as well as legal dirty tricks.) So after he's beaten, in public, he's out there standing in solidarity with this awful man who should be in jail saying that the important thing is that a Democrat is mayor. In private, it's another story, but he's all smiles in public.

I just don't get that. If you think someone should be in jail because they lie, cheat and steal, it doesn't matter that he's a fellow party member. Work to put him in jail, because even though the other guy is from another party, he probably shouldn't be in jail. No, people who call themselves Democrats and Republicans, they got it all wrong. You've got to pick the best person, the party produces corrupt practices if you consider it above the person.

Newt may have peaked. Last night he called for a 'humane' approach to illegal immigration and was less than gung-ho about a strike on Iran.

What a hippy!

geojanes wrote:
I have a client who became a sorta friend over the years who ran for mayor of the city where he is council president, and he was beaten in the Democratic primary by one of the most corrupt a**holes of the hopelessly corrupt Westchester County Democratic Party machine, and he got beat largely because the other side cheated (took too much money from different labor groups and other campaign violations, as well as legal dirty tricks.) So after he's beaten, in public, he's out there standing in solidarity with this awful man who should be in jail saying that the important thing is that a Democrat is mayor. In private, it's another story, but he's all smiles in public.

I just don't get that. If you think someone should be in jail because they lie, cheat and steal, it doesn't matter that he's a fellow party member. Work to put him in jail, because even though the other guy is from another party, he probably shouldn't be in jail. No, people who call themselves Democrats and Republicans, they got it all wrong. You've got to pick the best person, the party produces corrupt practices if you consider it above the person.

Of course you are correct. For many people this is a career and not about ideology at all. Or they are so narrow in their views that they confuse ends and means.

P.S. I grew up in Westchester ... no surprises there. Rockland is just as bad.

danivon wrote:Newt may have peaked. Last night he called for a 'humane' approach to illegal immigration and was less than gung-ho about a strike on Iran.

What a hippy!

I know you are being sarcastic on this. I saw the clip on illegal immigration. I thought Gingrich presented very well. It will be interesting to see how this impacts him in the polls. It goes to Gingrich's strength relative to more reflexive and less reflective GOP candidates (e.g. Cain, Bachmann). Some problems are complicated and require both compromise and an ability to delve deep. That plays to Gingrich's strength. He's actually going to Romney's left on this; I'm sure he is politically calculating that the support from independents / Latinos / moderate Republicans is worth the clipping he will receive from the far right. Ironically it enables Romney to sure up his conservative bonafides.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Don't be confused. You're complaining about the GOP field (as if it matters to you, which we both know it does not). I'm saying the Democratic field in 2008 was not so great either. And, you guys won!

"You guys?" Come on, I've never voted in a Democratic primary, I've never been a registered Democrat, I've never called myself a Democrat, but I guess I should let you call me one?

Sure. What is the highest office for which you have ever voted for a Republican? Mayor?

It's OK I guess, some people need to stick labels on people, but please call me a democrat, not a Democrat.

Can we settle on liberal? Progressive? Small 'd' democrat describes 80% of America.

You've got to pick the best person, the party produces corrupt practices if you consider it above the person.

I've made this point many times concerning corruption in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I've never voted for a Republican I believed was corrupt.

If you can say the same thing, then you will not be voting for Obama's reelection.

Doctor Fate wrote:Sure. What is the highest office for which you have ever voted for a Republican? Mayor?

Governor.

BTW, loved Newt's stand on immigration during the debate yesterday. Is he still a Republican? He sounded like he was channeling RR from 1982!

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:"You guys?" Come on, I've never voted in a Democratic primary, I've never been a registered Democrat, I've never called myself a Democrat, but I guess I should let you call me one?

Sure. What is the highest office for which you have ever voted for a Republican? Mayor?

Perhaps he votes Reform? There are more than two parties in the USA, albeit that the Republicrats have the virtual monopoly. False dichotomies really suck.

Ray Jay wrote:For many people this is a career and not about ideology at all. Or they are so narrow in their views that they confuse ends and means.

Or perhaps they feel they have a lot to give and understand they need to work within the system.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Perhaps he votes Reform? There are more than two parties in the USA, albeit that the Republicrats have the virtual monopoly. False dichotomies really suck.

Completely agree. I think I said it here before, I normally don't like the mainstream choices and vote third party, but I have voted for Democrats (including Obama) and Republicans (Gov. Engler of Michigan) on occasion.

I think Steve's attitude of exclusion is a little bizarre, since how you win elections in this winner take all system is to expand your tent to include people like me. But whatever. If we both ever liked the same candidate, he'd probably have to look at the candidate again to see what flaw he missed. (I might have to do the same!)

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Perhaps he votes Reform? There are more than two parties in the USA, albeit that the Republicrats have the virtual monopoly. False dichotomies really suck.

Completely agree. I think I said it here before, I normally don't like the mainstream choices and vote third party, but I have voted for Democrats (including Obama) and Republicans (Gov. Engler of Michigan) on occasion.

Engler must have been running against a pretty odd duck. Well, hey, good on you.

However, it is not wrong to label you a liberal. Your positions are pretty consistently "progressive," including going down to see OWS. I have never gone to a TP rally. I know, I know, you went for educational purposes. Fine. Still, I would not go because I understand their sentiments without needing to see it firsthand.

I think Steve's attitude of exclusion is a little bizarre, since how you win elections in this winner take all system is to expand your tent to include people like me. But whatever. If we both ever liked the same candidate, he'd probably have to look at the candidate again to see what flaw he missed. (I might have to do the same!)

There is no Republican running for President who will get your vote. You might like Huntsman or Romney more than Gingrich, but you would not vote for any of them, would you?

If I have an "attitude of exclusion," how would you describe your own "attitude?" "Inclusion?" So, you would vote for a Bible-thumper if he/she shared your economic vision? In other words, how much deviation from your positions would you tolerate? How big is your tent?

I bet it's not as big as you think it is.

Better yet: under what circumstances would you NOT vote for Obama? Please tell us how open-minded you are?

I'll tell you how I would vote for him: if he were to reverse everything he's done domestically in the first 3 years. He has been an unmitigated disaster. He took a bad situation and made it worse. I would not vote for him under any other circumstances.

I went down to see the Occupy Philadelphia crowd (during my lunch break) does that make me a closet Liberal?

If it's close enough to walk to, it means little.

Were you impressed?