U.S. Politics 29

[tarantella]

The other candidates were supposed to be competing with 2008 holdover Ron Paul in the crazy-relative-in-the-attic sweepstakes. But Michele Bachmann never got the memo. Instead of playing her familiar role as a Tea Party troubadour, she came across as a right-winger who offered quiet competence and legislative experience.

I don't know enough about Michele Bachmann to comment on her competence, but I wouldn't call her "quiet". And when it comes to finding the right qualifications for a president, those don't really stack up in any case.

I don't want to have to vote for Obama, but I will if you Republicans can't bring yourselves to nominate a halfway sane candidate.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't want to have to vote for Obama, but I will if you Republicans can't bring yourselves to nominate a halfway sane candidate.

Then I'll just mark you down now for an "Obama 2012" t-shirt.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tarantella,

If you don't support Obama don't vote for him. You have more than two choices.

[Ser Aardvark]

Like I said Romney is more than half-sane. I daresay he's the only one who I could see defeating Obama but that's reliant on several contingents:

1) Bachmann sees the writing on the wall. Much like Dean in '04, she has a strong passionate base and a lot of media attention. If Bachmann realizes the potential harm she could do to a Romney (or less likely to a Pawlenty) nomination then the more ready Romney will win the primaries and defeat the bland Pawlenty.

2) Perry doesn't enter. Perry is more charismatic than Pawlenty, has more experience than Bachmann, and, unlike Romney, is not only from the South, but from Texas. He could easily snag the race from both Pawlenty and Romney but I think his overall appeal against Obama is a no-go considering his many wacky comments. He just doesn't have the mainstream appeal to win battleground states even against the weakened Obama. He could upset the apple cart way worse than Bachmann and Santorum put together.

[The Progressive]

Huntsman might be the new GOP's game changer among its 10 little indians:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/17/jon-huntsman-for-president-2012-the-perfect-gop-candidate.html

[TrackerNeil]

Like I said Romney is more than half-sane. I daresay he's the only one who I could see defeating Obama but that's reliant on several contingents:

It's sad and ironic that Mitt Romney's greatest achievement is the one from which he's been running the hardest. There was a time when Republicans would have viewed his work on MA's health insurance reform a model for the way conservatives can shape policy even in a liberal state, but I'm afraid those days are gone. Now individual mandates have gone from a conservative brainchild to a Child of Satan.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There was a time when Republicans would have viewed his work on MA's health insurance reform a model for the way conservatives can shape policy even in a liberal state, but I'm afraid those days are gone.

If by "Republicans" you mean "a minority of Republicans", then you're correct. But the myth that Republicans in general ever supported something like Romneycare or the idea of an individual mandate is just false. It has always been a minority position within the party.

[Shryke]

Huntsman might be the new GOP's game changer among its 10 little indians:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/17/jon-huntsman-for-president-2012-the-perfect-gop-candidate.html

Obama's team has been praising the shit outta Huntsman to damage his credibility with the GOP base.

[TrackerNeil]

If by "Republicans" you mean "a minority of Republicans", then you're correct. But the myth that Republicans in general ever supported something like Romneycare or the idea of an individual mandate is just false. It has always been a minority position within the party.

And yet 20 GOP senators went on record back in 1993 in support of that "minority position." Four of those senators - Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond, conservatives all - voted against the mandate in 2009. In fact, at least two of them supported another mandate in 2009, in a bill that never saw the light of day. So although the mandate may now be a minority position in the GOP, once upon a time it wasn't.

[The Progressive]

And yet 20 GOP senators went on record back in 1993 in support of that "minority position."

Lol, didn't you got the memo that flow has been mailing everyone, tracker? Those aren't "real" Republicans, or that it's not their "real" position. ;)

[The Progressive]

Obama's team has been praising the shit outta Huntsman to damage his credibility with the GOP base.

Lol, it's the same strategy they've been using against Romney. Praises from Obama is like a deathspell for teabaggers.

:laugh:

[Demonic Weasel]

If by "Republicans" you mean "a minority of Republicans", then you're correct. But the myth that Republicans in general ever supported something like Romneycare or the idea of an individual mandate is just false. It has always been a minority position within the party.

Didn't the party through Eisenhower to Nixon at least generally espouse positions of public support for some kind of national health insurance? 'Always' seems like a very strong qualifier to use.

[Shryke]

Don't be silly people, the GOP has always been at war with Eastasia.

[awesome possum]

Yeah, FLoW's position (thus the one he received from GOP talking point newsletters) is that back in 1993 those Republicans didn't truly support anything. They were just trying to sabotage HillaryCare and so would have pledged to support anything if it meant the Clinton attempts failed.

In other words, FLoW's position is that the only consistent Republican position has been one of trying their damnedest to obstruct whatever it is the Democrats want.

Because politics in far too many of the GOP's mindset is like a sandbox at a pre-school. It's YOUR toy and if anyone tries to play with it scream and cry and throw a fit and if that doesn't get you your way, break the fucking thing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And yet 20 GOP senators went on record back in 1993 in support of that "minority position." Four of those senators - Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond, conservatives all - voted against the mandate in 2009. In fact, at least two of them supported another mandate in 2009, in a bill that never saw the light of day. So although the mandate may now be a minority position in the GOP, once upon a time it wasn't.

20 out of 43 (the number of GOP Senators) remains a minority. The mandate had next to no support among Republicans in the House, and GOP support in the Senate - based in large part on just trying to kill Clinton's plan for employer mandates -- collapsed when the Chamber of Commerce came out in opposition to any mandate.

It's fair to say that a lot of Senate Republicans supported an individual mandate in 93-94, and that a few of those guys hold positions now contradicting what they held then. But there was never a point at which an individual mandate was anything other than a minority position within the GOP.

[tarantella]

Tarantella,

If you don't support Obama don't vote for him. You have more than two choices.

It would be great if the US had an electoral system that gave voting for a third party or independent candidate for president more weight than just being a form of protest.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tarantella,

It would be great if the US had an electoral system that gave voting for a third party or independent candidate for president more weight than just being a form of protest.

Well, there's one safe way to attempt to change that, vote for, and campaign for parties and candidates willing to change the existing system and upset the status quo. What have you got to lose? It's not as though the parties in power will deny you stuff if you support a non-major party candidate.

[lokisnow]

Scalia et al took their mouths off the cocks of big business long enough to hand down another horrible decision.

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1923.html

it seems that while corporations have human rights and are legal 'people', it would be silly for the courts/law to expect them to have responsibilities and accountability you would expect from humans.

The case concerned a mutual fund whose prospectus was alleged to contain misleading statements that harmed investors. The question before the Supreme Court was not whether the statements were in fact misleading, but who should be construed as having made the statements. The answer, the Court determined, is perhaps nobody at all. Misleading statements were made, but literally no one can be held accountable.[

...

The Supreme Court held is that, even though employees of Janus Capital Management company actually wrote any misleading statements, even though they managed nearly every substantive aspect of the operation of the fund, they cannot be held responsible because they did not “make” the statements. The “person” under law who made the statements was the entity on whose behalf the offending prospectus was issued, the investment fund, which has no capital other than the money it invests for shareholders. Under Janus, the management company is beyond the reach of aggrieved investors.

[Ser Aardvark]

BTW, regardless of who supported what when, Romney's health care plan will be a bone of contention in the primaries where people of the right end of the party have significant sway, but nationally it won't matter too much. That's because, once again, polls have shown that overall most people are concerned foremost with the economy and jobs. Health care legislation comes ninth (though it should be noted that Medicare and Health care costs come seventh and eighth respectively). Here is where Perry has a chance for a strong showing and Romney is surprisingly weak but Clinton came from a struggling state in 1992 while the country was the economic doldrums so I think he could pull a win because people's views will be on what Obama has done for the country rather than what Romney did in MA (if it should come down to the two of them).

[tarantella]

tarantella,

Well, there's one safe way to attempt to change that, vote for, and campaign for parties and candidates willing to change the existing system and upset the status quo. What have you got to lose? It's not as though the parties in power will deny you stuff if you support a non-major party candidate.

When the existing system is already extremely stacked against any party other than the big two gaining a single meaningful position in government, it's a serious uphill battle to even begin to change the system. Our system of government is stagnant. Yeah, we have the freedom to vote for whoever we want and say whatever we like, but outside of very narrow boundaries none of it makes a difference when it comes to results.

I have a lot of respect for people who make an effort despite all that, and I just might support an outside candidate if I find one I like. Both my district and my state are very Republican, so it won't make a difference statistically... but why not.