2012 Republican News

[BigV]

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:

Speaking to an occasionally rowdy crowd two days before the Ames Straw poll, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made what seems likely to become a much-discussed flub, declaring to a group of Iowans that "corporations are people."

Pressed by an attendee at the Iowa State Fair on Thursday as to why he was focusing on entitlement reforms as a means of deficit reduction over asking corporations to share part of the burden, the GOP frontrunner shot back:

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."

Read more: http://technorati.com/politics/artic...#ixzz1UksIF4HP

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.

[classicman]

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

[infinite monkey]

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!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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!

[infinite monkey]

I shall call him Biff. Biff Romney Guerrilla.

[morethanpretty]

[ZenGum]

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.

[SamIam]

I especially liked the following:

Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."

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?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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 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.

[TheMercenary]

This was interesting...

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

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

[Flint]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This was interesting...

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

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

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?

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

[Clodfobble]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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

[Clodfobble]

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