There's the other side of it Ricky, where some voters looking to see how Romney would govern might be encouraged that he'd govern like a sane person rather than the reactionary candidate he's been.

that's right ... it hurts him in the primaries, but may help him in the general. I do think that etch-a-sketch is a tough metaphor because it is so accurate. It's a better visual than flip-flop.

geo

There's the other side of it Ricky, where some voters looking to see how Romney would govern might be encouraged that he'd govern like a sane person rather than the reactionary candidate he's been.

Some selling point. He might not believe the lies he's puttin out. He might not actually do the things he says he's going to do....
He might not actually believe the nonsense he's spouting. Like on Fox News on Sunday, when Mitt Romney bought fully into the claim that gas prices are high thanks to an Obama administration plot.

We've discussed this before, but American politics has a history of tolerating conspiracy theories and nutty extreme views... When a presidential candidate starts to propigate the conspiracies you've gone beyond the pale. Endorsing fastasy should disqualify someone from consideration for the position of President. I believe enough Americans will look at the proclamations of Romney with more fear that he means it, than hope that he's just kidding to jolly along the cranks he needs for the primary season.
Good read from Krugman today:
. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/opini ... r=1&src=tp

Shall we talk of the broken promises made by President Obama with his Primary speeches vs General election speeches? Do we really need to do that? I think the SNL sketch has that covered.

RickyP, which Obama is the real one in your opinion?

rickyp wrote:geo

There's the other side of it Ricky, where some voters looking to see how Romney would govern might be encouraged that he'd govern like a sane person rather than the reactionary candidate he's been.

Some selling point. He might not believe the lies he's puttin out. He might not actually do the things he says he's going to do....

I hear you Ricky. It's nuts. But there is a part of the American electorate that is largely disfranchised when it comes to reasonable choices on a national level that reflect their interests and desires. For lack of a better term, let's call them Rockefeller Republicans, which clearly exist among the electorate, if not the politicians, and they may wish to partake in wishful thinking when it comes to Romney. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that they might, because it's not like there are a lot of choices.

For lack of a better term, let's call them Rockefeller Republicans

,

Well, there's you and Archduke anyway...
And the other 6 people who might have voted for Huntsman.

Saw a great piece on health care solutions by Fareed Zakkaria the other night. He looked at systems that really worked well around the world Taiwan, Switzerland.... Switzerland has a system much like "Obamacare". Individuals mandated to have coverage provided by private insurers....All other parts of the sytem are private but the govenrment is invovled with insurers in setting fees.
100% coverage, better outcomes than the US and 11% GDP expenditure.
Now that kind of system sure seems better than the current US system at 17% and so many uninsured... Could a Rockefeller conservative buy into a common sense solution like the Swiss arrived at? Romney once did, although he now disowns it....

Frankly I can't see how there's any evidence that Romney would govern differently then he's campaigned. Most importantly he hasn't had the courage to honestly defend the reasonable attempt at improving health care that he tried in Mass....
Instead he's flailing at gas prices as a issue, without a sniff of evidence to support his claims.

The Swiss system is OK. My sister and neice are over there at the moment living under it. The main thing is that there is a set minimum standard for health insurance. If you can't afford it, the State pays. If you want to have more, it's easily catered for with the products the insurers have. Quite similar to RomneyCare/ObamaCare

Mind you, companies are allowed to compete over Canton lines.

The Swiss are quite similar to the Americans. Diverse (four official state languages, plus emigres from all over the place), lovers of making money and freedom, suspicious of centralised power and of foreign interference, every man has easy access to a gun...

The only real difference is scale,

But back to the race. It's true that after the primaries there is a kind of 'reset'. A lot of people don't engage until later in the year. Republicans will be tending to back their candidate whoever it is - although there may be a lack of enthusiasm on the hard social right if people think there's only a cigarette-paper difference between Romney and Obama.

And it continues. Santorum wins Louisiana, handily it appears as of now. Maybe Alabama, Mississippi AND Louisiana should secede.

geojanes wrote:And it continues. Santorum wins Louisiana, handily it appears as of now. Maybe Alabama, Mississippi AND Louisiana should secede.

They never would. Far too dependent on Federal taxes.

...and what faction of the political spectrum forced them to stay in the union 150 years ago?

and what faction of the political spectrum forced them to stay in the union 150 years ago?

The one's with more guns and soldiers. Who also forced a end to slavery....
But what does that have to do with the recognition that certain states of the country are today, being subsidized by other states.... and ironically the subsidized states are the ones who oppose the type of government that subsidizes them? Biting the hand that
feeds....

Are you saying that one state should not be subsidizing the other?

b

Are you saying that one state should not be subsidizing the other?

No. I'm saying that its only honest to explain to the citizens of Louisiana, Alabama and other states that they ARE being subsidized.
How many citizens of subsidized states actually understand the true nature of the distribution of tax receipts and expenditures on a state by state basis?
How many politicians would take the time to explain that to their constituents? Does media in those states ever explain it?
My guess is that very few Alabamans possess that knowledge. But thats only based on the recent polling that demonstrated some of the disinformation held by the populace. (see Obama muslim...)
Would it change southerners attitudes towards the federal government OR towards taxation if they understood the facts? I think perhaps.
We have a lot of experience with regional disparity and regional aspirations in Canada. For many years Quebecers were fed the nonsense that confederation was costing them as a province.... It fed the sense of alienation and sympathy for "seperation". One of the things that changed was when, because of the seperation debate, they learned that they were benefitting hugely from federal subsidization.... That as a rump country they would see a huge drop in their standard of living....
To a smaller degree, I'd guess, attitudes would shift in the South if it was understood that there was a degree of subsidization going on.....

rickyp wrote:

and what faction of the political spectrum forced them to stay in the union 150 years ago?

The one's with more guns and soldiers. Who also forced a end to slavery....
But what does that have to do with the recognition that certain states of the country are today, being subsidized by other states.... and ironically the subsidized states are the ones who oppose the type of government that subsidizes them? Biting the hand that
feeds....

Because it set the precedent that states aren't allowed to secede without war.

If you don't like the hand that feeds you, and you know it's going to feed you regardless, why not bite it once in a while?

rickyp wrote:

and what faction of the political spectrum forced them to stay in the union 150 years ago?

The one's with more guns and soldiers. Who also forced a end to slavery....
But what does that have to do with the recognition that certain states of the country are today, being subsidized by other states.... and ironically the subsidized states are the ones who oppose the type of government that subsidizes them? Biting the hand that
feeds....

Because it set the precedent that states aren't allowed to secede without war.

If you don't like the hand that feeds you, and you know it's going to feed you regardless, why not bite it once in a while?