It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thread

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 23:06:59

Santorum is a nut. Id be embarrassed for my country.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 23:31:38

lethal wrote:
dajafi wrote:jh, we all understand the spite thing. But presumably you love the country more than you hate all of us, and I know you're smart enough to understand that Frothy's starting new wars with Muslim freaks while trying to implement the Christianist version of their madness wouldn't work out real well.

In 2004, would you have voted for George Bush or Al Sharpton?

But the Democrats have never even come close to nominating a candidate like that--the most radical candidate the Dems have put up in recent times was McGovern. Now, you could make a case that Santorum is a Republican McGovern. But McGovern lost practically every state. To Nixon. And with the exception of 76 (again, thanks to Nixon) the consequence of that was that the Dems while managing to hold onto Congress for awhile were pretty much out of the Presidential game for 30 years. So, yeah, go ahead. Nominate Santorum. Sure, he'll do a bit better than McGovern. He'll probably carry most of the states McCain carried.

The problem is that the Republicans have gone off the rails and that is not good for America. We need two responsible parties for the system to work properly.

by **dajafi** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 23:49:21

The anti-Santorum ad writes itself: a cardboard cutout of Ol' Frothy standing outside a bedroom window in Anytown, USA. Given that he's pretty much explicitly said he thinks government can go into your bedroom, I don't see how he answers it other than with his deeply repellent view that the State has a right to control and punish your most personal behaviors. Talk about Big Government.

As for the hypothetical Bush vs. Sharpton contest, I think the only rational thing to do when faced with that is--and this holds regardless of one's views on the underlying issue of legalization--pull the lever for the United States Marijuana Party. Because I have no idea how one otherwise survives in a country that presents such a choice.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 04:01:48

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 04:29:27

dajafi wrote:... Ol' Frothy standing outside a bedroom window in Anytown, USA.

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:12:02

Santorum's election in November might be a legit reason to head North to Canada. My son is always talking about going to Vancouver so it might work out well. In actuality, I know that the Santorum wave will die eventually and we will be left with an Obama v. Romney general. I would not vote for him, but I could live with Romney. Still, I think Obama is going to be re-elected (barring something catastrophic between now and November).

by **Barry Jive** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:34:13

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02 ... to-canada/

by **Youseff** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:37:34

But imagine how cool it would be to gloat on an internet message board if he won!

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:02:20

Why Super PACs Are Good for Democracy - Pretty much the ultimate counter CW Slate article, but the points about transparency (vs. 501c4s) and lesser candidates being able to contend w/ one sugar daddy are important I think.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 13:02:38

jerseyhoya wrote:Why Super PACs Are Good for Democracy - Pretty much the ultimate counter CW Slate article, but the points about transparency (vs. 501c4s) and lesser candidates being able to contend w/ one sugar daddy are important I think.

Nerdniks find out about who gave how much, & for what.

An 'immediate transparency' requirement - $ amounts posted to an easily-accessible resource, with names/amounts - plus some kind of chart/table appearing in all ads showing a candidate's total dough and their total in proportion to all candidates - might be a useful picture too.

The thing is, it's one thing to know money distorts message reach, candidate influence, etc, and another to know, much less predict, just what impact the distortion has on results

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 13:13:50

Holy shit, having the terms "Super PAC" and "Democracy" in the same sentence pretty much makes the entire article a joke. Wow, I sure feel better that three multi-millionaires are able to better compete with another multi-millionaire because billionaires are contributing money to their Super PACs.

by **lethal** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 13:51:48

TenuredVulture wrote:
lethal wrote:
dajafi wrote:jh, we all understand the spite thing. But presumably you love the country more than you hate all of us, and I know you're smart enough to understand that Frothy's starting new wars with Muslim freaks while trying to implement the Christianist version of their madness wouldn't work out real well.

In 2004, would you have voted for George Bush or Al Sharpton?

But the Democrats have never even come close to nominating a candidate like that--the most radical candidate the Dems have put up in recent times was McGovern. Now, you could make a case that Santorum is a Republican McGovern. But McGovern lost practically every state. To Nixon. And with the exception of 76 (again, thanks to Nixon) the consequence of that was that the Dems while managing to hold onto Congress for awhile were pretty much out of the Presidential game for 30 years. So, yeah, go ahead. Nominate Santorum. Sure, he'll do a bit better than McGovern. He'll probably carry most of the states McCain carried.

The problem is that the Republicans have gone off the rails and that is not good for America. We need two responsible parties for the system to work properly.

Yeah, I looked at the 04 candidates and no one that even had a chance was as far out there in the other direction as Santorum (i.e., as objectionable to Republicans as Santorum is to Democrats). Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Dean. All fairly mainstream liberals in most ways. Lieberman, Gephardt...leaves you with non-contenders Sharpton and Kucinich who got as close to the nomination as Michele Bachmann.

by **thephan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 13:54:02

I was hearing on the radio today how a budget is an inherently political instrument, thus it could never be accepted, much less past - doubly so in an election year. That is the mindset we are dealing with. Passing a budget is politically unfavorable and unacceptable. Seriously, why do the legislators not just step out on the capital steps and just stand there flipping off their constituents. Politics has become just another competitive business where winner takes all, except the product is poor governance. How is that acceptable? I mean any of it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 14:39:05

traderdave wrote:Holy shit, having the terms "Super PAC" and "Democracy" in the same sentence pretty much makes the entire article a joke. Wow, I sure feel better that three multi-millionaires are able to better compete with another multi-millionaire because billionaires are contributing money to their Super PACs.

It cuts both ways though. The more candidates that are able to compete on the airwaves means a greater chance that voters will become informed about who is running and be able to form opinions about them.

Otherwise marginal candidates can hang in the race if they can get backing from a handful of rich folks, at which point presumably either their fundraising will take off in a more normal fashion (as Santorum's has recently) or they'll fizzle out because they suck as a candidate (path Newt appears to be heading down).

It also gives frontrunners additional capacity for fundraising, but there's been a lot of research done that highlights the diminishing utility of ad $$ past a point, and the bar to clear for viability isn't that high.

I don't know if Super PACs are net positives or net negatives for the process on the whole, but they do bring a bunch of benefits to the table, which have been ignored for the most part in reporting on them.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 14:40:15

thephan wrote:I was hearing on the radio today how a budget is an inherently political instrument, thus it could never be accepted, much less past - doubly so in an election year. That is the mindset we are dealing with. Passing a budget is politically unfavorable and unacceptable. Seriously, why do the legislators not just step out on the capital steps and just stand there flipping off their constituents. Politics has become just another competitive business where winner takes all, except the product is poor governance. How is that acceptable? I mean any of it.

The House passed Ryan's budget last year. Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in the past three years.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 15:03:15

GOPvalentine.com

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 15:05:58

jerseyhoya wrote:
thephan wrote:I was hearing on the radio today how a budget is an inherently political instrument, thus it could never be accepted, much less past - doubly so in an election year. That is the mindset we are dealing with. Passing a budget is politically unfavorable and unacceptable. Seriously, why do the legislators not just step out on the capital steps and just stand there flipping off their constituents. Politics has become just another competitive business where winner takes all, except the product is poor governance. How is that acceptable? I mean any of it.

The House passed Ryan's budget last year. Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in the past three years.

Completely misleading since Republicans used their 41 person majority on blocking previous ones.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 15:12:52

jerseyhoya wrote:The White House Chief of Staff (former head of OMB!!!) doesn't know the rules of how a budget resolution is passed in the Senate. He can be forgiven since Reid hasn't passed a budget in so long that I suppose it's easy enough to forget how it works.

pacino too

by **thephan** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 15:22:56

and the country has not had a budget since 2009. The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. If memory serves there was not a budget passed in 2007 either. In this hostage crisis it is the public that is being held. The number of decisions that cannot be made are astounding based on the the number of decisions that won't be made. If you don't believe that this is not impacting the economy or stifling innovation, you would be assuredly incorrect.

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 15:41:49

The budget does nothing...to actually fund it you need to pass all sorts of good little things which are then filibustered.

Archived

It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thread

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr

Re: It's Newt's World, We're Just Living In It, Politics Thr