2012 Republican News
 

Well, the Iowa straw polls are in a couple days, and the 2012 presidential campaign is well underway. While the field of candidates for the GOP isn't set yet (I expect the field to both expand and contract as the election approaches), there are some politicians who have already declared their candidacy. Once they've opened their mouths to declare, they make room for their feet.

Today's foot-in-the-mouth subject of derision is Mitt Romney. He's famously slick and his pro-business agenda slipped out today in this exchange:
Really? Corporations are people? Bwahahahahahaha! Puh-LEASE. News flash--corporations are NOT people. I accept that this is a gaffe, a speaking mistake. But...I believe Mitt Romney's mistake here is not that he believes that corporations are people, but that he confessed this belief out loud.

Unfortunately, I still do not see a viable candidate from the right side.
Gonna be the lesser of two ... again.
<sigh>

Hahahhahhahaaaaaa. Corporations are people too. Dumb slimy ass.



♪
"Be kind to every Who on every speck.
Every Who may be somebody's mother..." ♪

Let the circus begin! :jig:

V and Monkey -- you are both grossly, hugely, infinitely wrong about this.

Just who the FUCK makes corporations in the first place, you two? Martians? Stromatolites?

It takes humans to do business. That is Romney's point, and you two, along with the jackass in the background of the soundbite who burst out laughing, all have points on the tops of your heads.

Crush and destroy Obama and the Socialist Democrats! Let Libertarianism wash them away!

I shall call him Biff. Biff Romney Guerrilla.

Am I the only one who is amused by UG's political contortionism here? When it comes to invading other countries, he's all "pro-democracy" and "down with the anti-democrats".

Flip to US politics and he's "Down with the Democrats!" and "Up Republicanism".

I've got a new user title for him. The Republican Guard. I think it is available.

I especially liked the following:

Yeah, those earnings go to people, alright - people called CEO's who get outrageous salaries whether their corporation is doing well or not.

Hey, Mitt! The answer for the board and a thousand dollars is CEO's pockets! Got that, big guy?

This was interesting...

12 Things Texans Know About Gov. Rick Perry That You Should, Too

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...240638/#slide1

Yes, the part about how only 9% of Texas Republicans would vote for him for President doesn't surprise me in the least. The guy is a douchebag of the highest order, and everyone here knows that.

I don't want another religious right-wing nut in the White House but Obama has to go...

Like you're always saying... be careful what you wish for.

Yea, I agree. It could be a slippery slope. I would settle for the Republickins winning back the Senate, narrowly, and keeping the House, while Obama gets re-elected vs another swing of the pendulum to a single party control. I would really like to see the introduction of a strong minority party in both houses that would force more compromise. Any way you look at it the whole system of fucked up. I am beginning to hate them all.

Me too, Merc. (wow, I agree with you on something! ;))

I'd like the election process cleaned up and money, lobbyists, PAC's, super-PAC's, and all the buying and selling of politicians eliminated. Then, we might could get something useful done.

Yeah yeah, I know. Never gonna happen.

Aside from that, I'd also like to see the tea party and the rest of the extremists sent packing as well

I expect the Tea Party to start goose marching in the streets any time now.

Here then come.

Cellar bothers and sisters, I have reviewed this thread. It is time to speak.

You pretty much universally agree, Washington (except Glatt) is a mess - beyond redemption.

You know what must be done.

You are equipped, you are able. Some of you are already unemployed, so you'll have time.

Rise up! Rise up, American Dwellars! Seize back your country.


All tongue in cheek, of course, but half-seriously, I think the entire US executive could be replaced by US dwellars and congress replaced by votes from lurkers, and the US would be better off for it.

Oh and Bruce, those are the most plausible looking candidates I've seen yet.

The Republicans are screaming about "taking back our country" just like the Democrats did last Presidential cycle. That phrase creeps me out.

I'm pretty sure I'm just gonna move in with Zen. Zen, you have a couch, right?

Could you paraphrase, for those of us whose browsers just completely locked up after clicking this link and had to be ctrl-alt-deleted, twice in a row?

Few Texans Would Vote for Him
As people have been saying, Perry's not exactly popular in his home state (but, as he told Neil Cavuto last week, "a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown."). An independent poll released June 16 showed that only 9 percent of likely Republican voters in Texas would support him for president.

He Supported Al Gore in '88
When Perry first entered politics as a candidate for the Texas House in 1984, he was a Democrat. He remained a Democrat until he ran for Agriculture Commissioner in 1989, when he joined the Republican party. (In 1988, he not only endorsed Al Gore for president, he headed up his campaign in Texas.)

'Adios, MoFo'
His infamous catchphrase from 2005 later became a Texas Democratic campaign slogan: "Adios, MoFo." He had been referring to a reporter when he thought he was off-mic. (Or he knew he was still on-mic, and wanted to look like a bad-ass.)

Conspiracy Theory: He Backs Transnational Government
In 2007 -- way before all his anti-federal ranting -- Perry pushed hard for the Trans-Texas Corridor super highway, a.k.a. the "North American Union" under NAFTA. Conspiracy theorists in Texas (i.e. Alex Jones) accused him of trying to create a single nation consisting of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., living under one currency, the Amero.

Sued Over HPV Vaccines
In 2007, he bypassed the Texas legislature and signed an executive order to require HPV vaccines for all 6th grade girls. It did not sit well with conservative Christians and a lawsuit was filed by a group of concerned parents. Perry's former chief of staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, which created Gardisil, at the time. The legislature repealed his order.

Coyotegate

Border Cameras, Sanctuary Cities
In 2006, Perry proposed installing hundreds of night vision cameras along the border that would allow anyone to view it live online. During the regular legislative session this year, a bid to create sanctuary cities didn't pass, but Perry added them to the special session agenda. (Plus he has said he thinks Juarez is the most dangerous city "in America.")

He's Gotten More Religious
The governor has become increasingly Christian over the years, asking Texans to pray for rain and to join him in a Day of Prayer and Fasting to solve the nation's ills. It was sponsored by the American Family Association, which is known for its extreme anti-gay views.

He Pals Around with Palin
Sarah Palin endorsed him in the last gubernatorial campaign, making public appearances with him. It would be pretty great to see these two on the stage together. Ditto Rudy Giuliani.

He Didn't Blame BP for the Spill
Last year Perry called the BP oil spill an "act of God." (He considers many things "acts of God.")

He's Not Popular with W
Bush loyalists can't stand Perry. But that might be a good thing

Friends With Ted Nugent

A Nader Connection
Perry's top adviser Dave Carney was accused of helping collect signatures for the Ralph Nader campaign in order to help Republicans in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns.

Thanks.

A friend of mine texted me today: "Also I'm pretty sure Rick Perry dyed his hair. Who does that slick faggot think he's fooling?" lol

Straight from the horse's mouth, although I don't know of this counts because the guy that texted this is originally from Oklahoma.

An interesting article. It lays out the contrasts between Perry and Obama pretty thoroughly and summarizes the the condition of Texas' health care, education, budget, ect.

*Sigh*
Teabag scum IMHO. If making the conditions for corporations favorable, allowed for favorable conditions for society, why would Texas have such a clear issue with poverty, education and lack of health care?

I see you are not a deep student of US political philosophies, Zen. Well, you're on the outside looking in and you're not majoring in US studies, so it's understandable. You've managed to confuse labels with working philosophies -- and frankly in US politics the labels of the Big Two aren't powerfully indicative of what they believe in, or indeed of any difference in what they believe in either.

For about the last thirty or forty years, the Big Two parties (and a two-party system is a natural result of winner-take-all Electoral College rules for the one duumvirate office it directly affects, the Presidency with the Vice Presidency) have implemented an enthusiasm for Great Big Government as the solution to most Federal-size problems, assuming for the sake of argument that these are indeed problems. When both Democratic and Republican Parties contained a continuum from conservative to progressivist solons, they were about like the difference between one GM company's car and another GM company's car -- that is, not much.

This has in the last fifteen years or so become less the case, though this conversion is by no means complete or desired. The Democratic Party has become increasingly socialist in its ideas, and the Republicans, always inclined to be business sorts, rather more capitalistic than before. Some sorting by ideology has been going on.

Capitalism is associated with making deals, mutually beneficial exchanges. This is what naturally goes on between humans. It is altogether independent of government in its fundamentals.

Socialism is not, and hence requires the force of the State to cause socialist things and policies to happen. It is collectivist rather than giving the individual his due regard.

Socialism and Communism make a big deal out of "the collective," which they suppose to be a virtuous entity.

There is no such thing as "the collective." If human beings were involuntary telepaths, maybe there might be.

The Democratic side has increasingly set about buying votes by pandering, to this group, to that group, to anything they think is a bloc. It is not fundamentally different from Roman Senators pandering to the mob with promises of panem et circenses, and having to find inflationary measures to cover the bills for all that. The Republicans are generally less inclined to embarrass themselves so -- of late. So, yes, I am more impressed with the virtu and the virtues of the Republicans, for now.

It has gotten to the point where Democratic politicians hint very broadly, if induced to comment, that scandals that destroy Republican politicians only scuff Democrats up, because Democrats aren't expected to behave with propriety or integrity, or with character either. Isn't that just fucking peachy.

This is not to say Republican solons have not merrily gone along with the aggrandizement of the State and the enlargement of the public sector. They have done this very thing to feast out of the Federal pork barrel, as the American metaphor has had it since very early in the nineteenth century -- getting Federal goodies for the benefit of the home constituency. Yep, buying votes with the mob.

In the old days, the US Senate was supposed to be designed to be a set of representatives (small R here) not elected by the population as a whole, but by the Legislatures of the several States of the Union instead -- that the states' Senators were to more directly represent (and Federally empower) their respective State governments, every state on an equal footing regardless of population or economic strength. Just in case of the madness of crowds, was part of the original thinking. What with this and that, this seemed too oligopolistic and was eventually amended to having Senators chosen by direct election, serving rather lengthy terms of office of six years, compared to the House of Representatives' two-year terms. Previous to the relevant Amendment, the electorate's effect on choosing the two Senators of its state was indirect -- in voting for the State Legislators, choosing those who chose the Senators. But still the feature of one house of Congress (the entire Legislative Branch) being of equal representation by state while the other be of representation by population was retained even with the direct election of Senators.

A few pols and pundits wonder if perhaps this should not be reinstated. The idea has attracted more "Hm, that's interesting" than traction.

The Libertarian Party, a tiny US third party that is generally kept frozen out of national-level elections and hence does not make a great international ripple, is implacably opposed to the aggrandizement of the State and to the heavy taxation that fuels an aggrandized State. I find their arguments persuasive on the domestic front. I also find the Democratic Party to be the party most bitterly opposed to Libertarian ideas. The Republicans, while not a perfect fit, are considerably less so. Such opposition as Republicans have to Libertarian philosophies is weaker. The Libertarians are far too pacifist, apparently on the grounds that a Fed with a small army is a less expensive Fed -- I do not think they are being real about the way to safeguard US economic interests anywhere not run by a libertarian-minded democracy but by oligarchy instead. Only some oligarchies are comparatively benevolent; the common run are despotic, and all of America's serious foreign policy troubles come from undemocratic, despotically run societies.

The democratic societies run, well, variations upon the American model: free markets and representative government closely accountable for its behavior to the citizenry. Since WW2, they have found out for themselves that it works. It gets called the "American model" of an economy and a social order in the main because somebody somewhere had to do it first, and due regard should be given to how parts of Europe contained within their social thinking the seeds the flowered largely upon the North American continent. A China could not have come up with what we do. A France really couldn't, nor Holland or Belgium, and Spain quite simply didn't. It was an English thing, really.

NOW you're beginning to get it, Merc. Glad to see you're coming around!

Did anyone else notice the news blackout concerning Ron Paul?
See Stewart bit.

Yeh, I did. Apparently the media is deciding who should be considered for us.

My plan is to move off the grid, dig and big hole in the ground and buy more ammo. The rest of you are on your own.

Could you hit up Alec Baldwin for that unused plane ticket? It's not like he's going anywhere.

A Wishful Ad-Hominem Ad

And Gallup is saying, essentially, that merely eleven in a hundred Americans is willing to say "Obama In 2012." There's always some poor bastard that doesn't get the word, and a couple of them post here.

:eek:

Who hacked UG's account?

If there were any intelligent, non-freak candidates, other than Obama, to vote for, I would definately consider it. As it stands, I am NOT willing to accept what these morons are selling just to see Obama out of office. I mean really...have you all looked at the candidates in depth? :eek::eyebrow::greenface. It's enough to make me want to move out of the country.

And for the record, my issue with Obama is that he is too neutral and not tough enough. I want someone in there who will FIGHT for the things I believe in, not cave at the slightest opposition.

They're all liars, hypocrites, and greedy mofo's, not to mention bought and paid for. Not a one of them has the best interests of the majority of the American public at heart. And they're not listening to us so they never will be a true representative of the people. They represent the dollar and corporate power, not me.

Apols to all the People Of Faith here, but I have a deep seated suspicion of anyone who gets their "wisdom" from an old book that essentially has been messed around with for over a century until it passed muster by committee.

I have more respect for the Constitution, simply because it's newer and hasn't been allowed to change. But even that was written by political white men in a time when women were not allowed to vote and people were considered chattel.

I don't care an awful lot for Nick Clegg (Deputy Leader) but at least he's an atheist, and doesn't have a big guy in the sky telling him what to do.










Well, his wife is Catholic, so substitute Big Guy for Lady....

Stormie - you are on a roll lately. I couldn't agree more.
Obama has been tentative and the rule by polls, terrible.
The alternatives are truly frightening and leave one with no alternative. Things are gonna suck for a long time. :(

Isn't Obama kind of hampered in what he can and can't do as President though? I don't even pretend to understand the US political system, it seems as byzantine and illogical as my own, but watching from over here I am often surprised at how powerless the President seems as an individual player. Is that the case, or is it just that he hasn;t played the system well enough to be effective?

During the debt ceiling fiasco, people were saying that he should stick to his guns and fight for what it is he stands for, but had he done that then the negotiations would have failed and the US would have defaulted on its bills. There didn't appear to be any mechanism for him to impose a solution.

The Prime Minister is a much more powerful figure in British politics. Similar checks and balances exist, but the PM's capacity for action and executive decision seems much more extensive.

In addition to self-imposed limits, like having to play the adult and not let the country to default, there is the additional limit caused by the filibuster.

When the Democrats were in the minority, even though they filibustered or used the threat of filibuster sparingly, Ann Coulter made the rounds of conservative talk shows and correctly stated that the filibuster is a rule and has no backing in law or the Constitution. When the Democrats gained the majority she was strangely silent:cool:. The Republican minority used filibusters at least 7 times more often than Democrats had ever done. This was one of the major reasons why many of the Obama administration initiatives failed to pass.

It was also, ironically, one of the reasons Republicans were able to retake the House of Representatives. Voters were right to ask why the Obama failed to fulfill his promises. Unfortunately, in the election that followed, they ended up rewarding the obstructionists that caused the situation that they were complaining about. They also set the stage for gridlock.

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...131634517.html

Yes. Any president is limited in what he or she can do by the restrictions placed upon them by the five or six corporations that currently own and run the US. This is why it doesn't really matter who you vote for, it's like choosing between salt or pepper on your shit sandwich.

Or to put it less scatalogically: different puppets, same puppeteers.

The president was hampered by extremists in his party who could not compromise (during Health Care) even when they were the majority. Eventually they had to compromise. But only after costing Obama so much time and so much political capital. As a result, moderate Democrats (and not extremist Democrats) took it on the chin in the mid-term elections. So we ended up with a Congress of even more extremists - less moderates.

Extremists will do anything - harm the American economy - to promote their wacko agenda. They literally took the nation to the verge of default because their political agenda, inspired by Limbaugh genius, has given us so many good things - ie Mission Accomplished and the American surrender in Afghanistan. America may have never had a Congress so wacko extremist since before the Civil War when extremists also created what they wanted.

No leader can fix that. Obama has defined objectives. In a Congress dominated by mental midgets in both parties, Obama has done well. After three years, he cannot even get many of his subordinate officers approved by Congress. That never happened before. But wackos, especially those educated by Faux News, are that dumb as to want to destroy America. Even a Nobel Prize winning quit trying to take an office because Congress is now so dumb at to put secret holds on so many nominations. Wackos who, even in the Cellar, have had their intelligence questioned for good reason.

Wackos once did not dominate Congress. One cannot blame Obama for so many Americans so dumb as to listen to Rush Limbaugh and recite Ann Coulter 'wisdom'.

Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example of what extremist call and promoted as a good Senator. Who could be so easily manipulated as to think Palin is anything but a buffoon? How does a president get anything done in a Congress approved by so many who also like O'Donnell? It cannot happen. Mental midgets now run Washington because so may will do exactly what extremist talk radio tells them.

How many wacko extremists apologize for massacring 4.500 American soldiers uselessly in Iraq? That would mean admitting to being manipulated by soundbytes. Extremists cannot be that honest.

Many years ago, I warned our overseas brethren how wacko extremists in this nation were worshipping Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. I noted how overseas observers could not understand how wacko extremists were routinely brainwashed by soundbytes multiple times daily. We now have what I had warned about almost a decade ago. You cannot blame Obama for an America where white males now obtain less education then their parents. Limbaugh, et al disparage the bourgeois and intelligentsia. And extremist say that is good.

How do we change that? I have a pitchfork and a torch, if that helps.

I said this before the election, though not so well: personal over country. That's patriotism?

We the people. Me the people. Ugh.

Merely set dressing and has nothing to do with the script or the producers of the play.

I think the problems are the wacko extremists on both sides, and unfortunately, the majority are extremists now. Moderates are an endangered species.

Why are we here?

I speculate that it's gerrymandering. The incumbents are drawing the lines on the map when the new census comes out, and they are drawing the lines so that they have a solid base to be reelected. So now you have districts that lean heavily Democrat or heavily Republican, but there are very few that are balanced. In a balanced district, you have to appeal to the moderate swing voters to win an election. In a gerrymandered district, you only have to appeal to your base.

Add to this the rise of the internet over the last decade or two, and like minded people finding each other on political forums. They get into this feedback loop where they think everyone agrees with them and those other people are the enemy.

And then you have the media. The Right seems to have more success at these Rush Limbaugh and Fox news type shows that get everyone marching together in an extremist lockstep formation. But the Left has made feeble attempts to go down that path as well.

Right now it all seems worse, because we are in the primaries, and the Republicans are speaking only to their base right now. So they sound like wacko extremists. It will be amusing to watch them try to change their rhetoric in several months when they try to appeal to the middle. I can't see any of them pulling it off.

All of these factors are pushing us towards more polarization, and there is little room for moderates. It's depressing.

Huntsman is starting to reposition calling his rivals out as the extremists they are, but we'll see...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...s-unelectable/

I don't understand why he isn't doing better. He really seems like the most rational of them all.
Then again thats not saying much is it?

There's your problem.

So, he is hampered, but part of the reason he is hampered is to do with his earlier strategies and approaches, and how he played the game early in his presidency?

That's what happened with McCain. I liked McCain, until he started talking nonsense to appeal to the republican right-wing base.

Yeah. I kind of liked him until he did his run for president.

Him and Romney have similar actual views (I'm not talking about rhetoric) so most of Huntsman's would be supporters go to Romney.

Yes, but I think Huntsman has a lot less baggage in the religion category. He also has more experience with his ambassadorship and a few other things.

Is there any reason to believe all combatants are in the ring yet?

no, got anyone in mind? I can't think of anyone on that side credible enough. IT seems as though they all are waiting to run against Biden or Clinton (whoever) in 2016.

Nate Silver at NYT graphs the race and finds the room for more candidates:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-p-candidates/

Neat graphs. Is it possible that the nut cluster (yummy) will crush each others chances? It could be quite a circus at the convention. Romney looks strong in that case, but I'd rather see Guiliani or Huntsman. Rudy thinks women have rights, but surrounded by 911 responders he could still get the raw meat vote.

Interesting charts, I wonder how he scored each candidate to get them into their various bubbles and sizes.

God is Bachmann's political advisor
 

Statements like this make me worried and angry. Politicians who act this way are to be viewed skeptically. I try to make sense of this kind of behavior and every likely motive is bad or worse. Here's the range of motives as I see it:


They're clumsy. This is bad.

This happens, I know. It can range from funny to embarrassing to shameful. Bachmann's misstep about Elvis' birthday noted later in the clip is an example. Ha ha (note to self, get better researchers). Earlier in the year when she just made up some shit about American history regarding the American Revolution is closer to the shameful end of the scale.


They're pandering. This is worse.

This is very common, and it's understandable, do this for me, vote, and I'll do this for you, (insert promise here). When it's real, tangible, and good, it is legitimate. When it is fantasy, like this is, it's scary and wrong.


They're uninformed. This is worse still.

Bachmann's uninformed if she really thinks that there isn't an earthquake in the United States every day. News flash--earthquakes happen all the time. A discussion about the hand of God belongs elsewhere. Being well informed is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a good leader. It is important for our leaders to have a good grasp of the facts. Being poorly informed is inexcusable and makes good leadership impossible.


They believe. This is the worst.

I don't know what's in Bachmann's heart. But this statement is consistent with other similar statements and consistent with some of her actions: belief that she knows what God wants. I have a BIG problem with this kind of conflation of personal belief and public responsibility. A cornerstone of our republic is the separation of church and state, and the prospect of our politicians, *especially* the leader of our country, doing God's work as revealed to them, revolts and terrifies me. Bachmann attempts to control the damage she wrought by dressing it up as merely "clumsy" "humor" (in fact she stumbles over her own explanation), but it's really this worst kind of behavior: belief, belief in the face of facts and logic. God save us.

I don't want my leaders to be clumsy, or pandering or uninformed or worst of all, true believers of false ideas. I deserve better and so do you. I demand better. And so should you.

Fuck yeah!

Well said V.

If the USA weren't so dang important, this would be kind of funny. As it is, it is scary.

why is the latest batch of political women such a joke?

Putting these women (Michele, Sarah and their ilk) up front and suggesting they are the best American women can hope for??? wtf?

where are the smart women?? where are the self-aware women? where are the women who at least passed basic biology???