jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

laf837 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Jon Corzine is seriously considering naming the winner of season four of the Apprentice to be his LG candidate. I despair for my state.

Ha! I actually have collaborated on a business opportunities with one of the 8a firms he established in Newark. His resume is real impressive (if you block out the Apprentice nonsense). His company does alot of work with HUD and such. We haven't won the bid yet so I haven't seen the man in action. He is a bit of a salesman and loves the MBA jargon.

He actually doesn't seem too bad, but LG of NJ, isn't something I would think would be an entry level position for politics.

Really? I think it'd be one of the easiest jobs ever. You'd probably be ok as long as you could maintain a pulse, and remind the governor to wear a seatbelt.

LG would be easy. But I've got to think Corzine has like 50/50 odds to end up a cabinet secretary before the end of his second term if he and Obama are both reelected.

Secretary of Transportation?

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:LG of NJ, isn't something I would think would be an entry level position for politics.

Didn't Corzine himself come in as a U.S. Senator? Compared to that, this Apprentice guy would be starting in the mailroom.

I guess, although I think being governor of New Jersey is probably 10x harder than being a senator. That he won't come in as governor is an important point, and I guess we're looking at a reverse Palin here, on a much smaller and less important scale. And while Pinkett appears to have some aptitude she lacks, but he has zero governing experience. Corzine had run Goldman Sachs before getting elected, as well. This guy's successful and educated, but his business isn't quite Goldman Sachs.

It's not overly surprising given Corzine is still down double digits that he's looking to do something that gets attention. I just think it's a weird name to make a short list of anything.

FWIW, and based really on nothing but my sense of these things, I don't think Corzine has a shot in hell.

Corzine's going to spend a lot more money than Christie. Probably out spend him 8 or 10-1. And it's New Jersey, so there's the built in edge for Democrats. Christie was up something like 64-28 in the last poll among independents. He's going to have to keep an impressive lead among independents against a tide of nasty, negative half truths if he's going to be able to hold on and win to make up for there being more Dems than GOPers.

Hey, JH, if you want to work for this guy, I could give him a reference--I've known him since kindergarten. I'll mention your ability to down whiskey and other stuff I know about you from this board.

http://www.mikehalfacre.com/default.asp

jerseyhoya wrote:Corzine's going to spend a lot more money than Christie. Probably out spend him 8 or 10-1. And it's New Jersey, so there's the built in edge for Democrats. Christie was up something like 64-28 in the last poll among independents. He's going to have to keep an impressive lead among independents against a tide of nasty, negative half truths if he's going to be able to hold on and win to make up for there being more Dems than GOPers.

All true, and you know this state (and this stuff in general) much better than I do. But unless I mis-read who Christie is, he's not going to fall into the Bret Schundler trap of coming across as a reactionary or an ideologue. I have to imagine the RNC and the Republican Governors Association will step up in a big way for him. And Corzine, as far as I can tell, has no emotional connection with any chunk of the electorate. Nobody's invested in his political success except him and maybe the unions.

Add in that he comes across as a rich jerk at a time when that breed isn't very popular, and I think he's toast.

Big news:

White House officials tell CQ Politics that President Obama "is moving closer" to advancing health care reform "under a congressional procedure known as budget reconciliation that would make the bill immune to filibuster in the Senate."

"While the administration still prefers to get a bill that commands some Republican support, its standard for a bipartisan agreement is a measure that contains GOP amendments -- not something that will necessarily attract Republican votes."

"The subtle but important shift reflects Obama's eagerness to get House and Senate bills to a conference in September and sign a final bill into law by fall."

This would be a huge bet on the success (and perception of success) of any big health care reform. If it works, and the economy recovers, the Republicans wouldn't come back for a decade. If it flops, the Democrats could be just as damaged and we'd probably see a third party emerge.

Well if health care is gonna get socialized, it should hurry up and do so while I'm poor.

dajafi wrote:Big news:

White House officials tell CQ Politics that President Obama "is moving closer" to advancing health care reform "under a congressional procedure known as budget reconciliation that would make the bill immune to filibuster in the Senate."

"While the administration still prefers to get a bill that commands some Republican support, its standard for a bipartisan agreement is a measure that contains GOP amendments -- not something that will necessarily attract Republican votes."

"The subtle but important shift reflects Obama's eagerness to get House and Senate bills to a conference in September and sign a final bill into law by fall."

This would be a huge bet on the success (and perception of success) of any big health care reform. If it works, and the economy recovers, the Republicans wouldn't come back for a decade. If it flops, the Democrats could be just as damaged and we'd probably see a third party emerge.

The Republicans have been saying this amongst themselves for awhile. I think it was Kristol back in 93 that said that if Clinton passed his healthcare bill, they would be out of power for several generations. The success of Obama's plan would really hurt the GOP

I'm not sure the Democrats successfully passing health care reform will cripple the GOP politically in any way. It'll hurt for a cycle or two, but a decade seems like a reach and several generations is insane. The concern I've heard more is that once something like this is enacted, there's no turning back. Sure maybe you can reform it a bit around the edges, but once people get "free" health care, it won't be politically feasible to reel it back in even if it turns out to be crappy and such. Or as Reagan put it: "The nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on the earth is a government program."

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not sure the Democrats successfully passing health care reform will cripple the GOP politically in any way. It'll hurt for a cycle or two, but a decade seems like a reach and several generations is insane. The concern I've heard more is that once something like this is enacted, there's no turning back. Sure maybe you can reform it a bit around the edges, but once people get "free" health care, it won't be politically feasible to reel it back in even if it turns out to be crappy and such. Or as Reagan put it: "The nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on the earth is a government program."

But if Republicans were serious about all this, wouldn't they be offering real alternatives that might get passed, or done something other than spend the last 12 years saying nothing other than "The US healthcare system is the best in the world!"? It seems that Republicans have made a political calculation that the only way they win this thing is by preventing anything from being passed. Long term, it's tough to see how that wins.

Anyway, as far as how long the Republicans remain in the wilderness--if Obama's reform is deemed a success, and the economy comes back, I think you've got a really weak party for at least a generation. Not simply because of health care, but for all the reasons why the Republicans are in big trouble anyway. There's the demographic issue--in a decade, Texas is purple unless Texas Hispanics start voting Republican. And there's the reality that the party is increasingly identified with Southern conservatism, which isn't even really all that strong in the South.

I could see a centrist party of blue dog Dems and moderate Republicans emerging, but then I'd be wrong about my whole populist v. elite hypothesis, so I'm not gonna elaborate on that.

They're really in trouble if the evangelical wing splits and forms their own party away from the more traditional conservatives

I can't see this happening, but pretty cool if it did:

http://schiffforsenate.com/

kopphanatic wrote:They're really in trouble if the evangelical wing splits and forms their own party away from the more traditional conservatives

You know, I'm not as sure about this as I used to be. A Republican Party liberated from its key internal contradiction--that you can't plausibly have "1950s values" in an economy that bears no resemblance to the '50s, and trying to do so just drives up rates of divorce, gun accidents and addiction to meth--could pick off a lot of people who right now probably would classify themselves as weak Democrats. I'm thinking a coalition of non-fanatical laissez-faire types, social libertarians and defense/foreign policy hawks could be electorally viable in a fairly short period of time. (And eventually this could be the "elite" party in Paul's hypothesis--wouldn't that be a switch.)

The problem is that for however long that sort of coalition took to form, the current crop of Republicans would be doomed. All you have left there now are the culture warriors ("fundamentalists") and the free-market fundamentalists, plus a few million mostly elderly anger junkies hooked on Fox and Rush. And the first group, the Palin wing, is the bigger half.

The "traditional conservatives" would come back eventually, I think, because at bottom they have a story to tell that's compelling on its own merits and deeply resonant in American history. But I'm guessing that's too much upheaval for most currently employed Republicans to countenance.

Yeah, over a long period of time that kind of split could indicate a major realignment. But if Palin decides to form her own group for 2012, and I still doubt that this will happen, Obama can sleep through his reelection campaign.

All the Republicans need are a few likable candidates that can make the case for a coherent set of principles, who through his/her popularity, can pull the party in that direction. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and Ron Paul is not the guy I'm talking about, but a younger more charismatic guy is the type of person that can help shape the party. The Republican party needs someone popular enough to go AGAINST the party on issues/positions that don't make sense. Right now, the tenor of discourse is relatively poor; The leadership is weak, and the nationally known Republicans poll terribly among independents. I don't know who's going to emerge from the ashes, but the vacuum of leadership will be filled.

The Democrats were in shambles half a dozen years ago, and now look what happened. They were as weak on national security as the Republicans will be on healthcare (assuming the Dems pass a credible plan). It won't take 20 years for the Dems to leave the door open for Repubs to gain power, just like it didnt take long for the Repubs to screw up their position of power. We'll have budget problems much before that.

dajafi wrote:Big news:

White House officials tell CQ Politics that President Obama "is moving closer" to advancing health care reform "under a congressional procedure known as budget reconciliation that would make the bill immune to filibuster in the Senate."

"While the administration still prefers to get a bill that commands some Republican support, its standard for a bipartisan agreement is a measure that contains GOP amendments -- not something that will necessarily attract Republican votes."

"The subtle but important shift reflects Obama's eagerness to get House and Senate bills to a conference in September and sign a final bill into law by fall."

This would be a huge bet on the success (and perception of success) of any big health care reform. If it works, and the economy recovers, the Republicans wouldn't come back for a decade. If it flops, the Democrats could be just as damaged and we'd probably see a third party emerge.

Not that big a gamble. If healthcare reform fails or succeeds the major blame or credit will go to Obama and Dems, whether it passes with 20 Republican votes or 0. The Dems actually have more cover if the Republicans give 0, because that just shows them as obstructionists. Republicans have had great leverage to improve bills this session but have just dug in their heels in NO mode. Healthcare reform should come with tort reform. Anyone seriously think Dems don't include that in exchange for a dozen Republican votes? Healthcare reforms should include more personal responsibility for monitoring healthcare use with charges per doctor and emergency room visit. Anyone think this and other free market reforms aren't readily included in return for those dozen Republican votes? I suspect many swing voters realize this.

Werthless wrote:All the Republicans need are a few likable candidates that can make the case for a coherent set of principles, who through his/her popularity, can pull the party in that direction. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and Ron Paul is not the guy I'm talking about, but a younger more charismatic guy is the type of person that can help shape the party. The Republican party needs someone popular enough to go AGAINST the party on issues/positions that don't make sense. Right now, the tenor of discourse is relatively poor; The leadership is weak, and the nationally known Republicans poll terribly among independents. I don't know who's going to emerge from the ashes, but the vacuum of leadership will be filled.

The Democrats were in shambles half a dozen years ago, and now look what happened. They were as weak on national security as the Republicans will be on healthcare (assuming the Dems pass a credible plan). It won't take 20 years for the Dems to leave the door open for Repubs to gain power, just like it didnt take long for the Repubs to screw up their position of power. We'll have budget problems much before that.

But a dozen years ago, you could look at the demographics, and see the light at the end of the tunnel if you were a Democrat. And Clinton was more popular than any Republican is today.

As far as small government conservatives/libertarians, well, they've been dead a long, long time. They've got virtually no electoral base, and haven't had one for a long, long time.

Just half watched Sebelius on Daily Show and learned more about the health care plan than I've learned from NYT and WaPo articles over the past few weeks. I like her. Glad she isn't running for Senate.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not sure the Democrats successfully passing health care reform will cripple the GOP politically in any way. It'll hurt for a cycle or two, but a decade seems like a reach and several generations is insane. The concern I've heard more is that once something like this is enacted, there's no turning back. Sure maybe you can reform it a bit around the edges, but once people get "free" health care, it won't be politically feasible to reel it back in even if it turns out to be crappy and such. Or as Reagan put it: "The nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on the earth is a government program."

But if Republicans were serious about all this, wouldn't they be offering real alternatives that might get passed, or done something other than spend the last 12 years saying nothing other than "The US healthcare system is the best in the world!"? It seems that Republicans have made a political calculation that the only way they win this thing is by preventing anything from being passed. Long term, it's tough to see how that wins.

Anyway, as far as how long the Republicans remain in the wilderness--if Obama's reform is deemed a success, and the economy comes back, I think you've got a really weak party for at least a generation. Not simply because of health care, but for all the reasons why the Republicans are in big trouble anyway. There's the demographic issue--in a decade, Texas is purple unless Texas Hispanics start voting Republican. And there's the reality that the party is increasingly identified with Southern conservatism, which isn't even really all that strong in the South.

I could see a centrist party of blue dog Dems and moderate Republicans emerging, but then I'd be wrong about my whole populist v. elite hypothesis, so I'm not gonna elaborate on that.

I'm far more open to hearing about how the GOP is effed anyway for the next 20 years than hearing about how health care is likely to consign us to minority status. I think that's back patting bs at its finest.