Republican Candidates

[Hurlshort]

I thought this was a pretty clever clip from SNL

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/287088/saturday-...stie#s-p2-sr-i1

[Calax]

Looks like Romney is pulling ahead again. BTW have you all heard the absolutely vile and slightly racisist attacks on Herman Cain coming from left wing pundits such as Oberman, Matthews & Shaprton. If they hate him that much he must be good!

 

And a big THANK YOU to Sarah Palin for doing the right thing and not imposing her presence on this election.

 

Edit: Sorry, here is the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la...olls/elections/

Well, he's also made himself the most visible candidate by going on every talk show under the sun. I think Romney would end up as the best "moderate" candidate (if those still existed), and Cain... well Cain might not understand fully what he'd have to deal with as a political figure in the position of executive rather than as a CEO. Political experience counts, particularly as an executive.

[Walsingham]

I've been pondering the recent furore over our Minister in charge of Defence, Liam Fox, and reached a hypothesis:

 

No worthwhile politician or indeed person has a cupboard free of skeletons.

 

It further occurs to me, reading this thread, that the US system is now a parlour game of 'who has the least skeletons' and is thereby rendered an exercise in selecting pasteboard simpletons.

 

[Nepenthe]

I've been pondering the recent furore over our Minister in charge of Defence, Liam Fox, and reached a hypothesis:

 

No worthwhile politician or indeed person has a cupboard free of skeletons.

 

It further occurs to me, reading this thread, that the US system is now a parlour game of 'who has the least skeletons' and is thereby rendered an exercise in selecting pasteboard simpletons.

 

Considering I'm now in BBC-land, I've been following the same news looking roughly like this:

[Hurlshort]

This primary is definitely taking some odd turns, I really thought there would be a clear frontrunner, or at least be down to two at this point. Romney really seems to be unable to seal the deal here, and I don't think his tax returns are going to help his cause.

 

Most of the nutjobs have dropped out, Rick Santorum is the only one left. Santorum might be the worst of the bunch though, he's hardcore religious and that makes me nervous. He's been losing that initial steam fast, so I don't think it will be an issue. I've really had trouble figuring out Ron Paul, he keeps getting that Libertarian title and he's got that loyal constituency, but I still feel like I know little about the guy.

 

So that leaves Gingrich and Romney, it seems. I gotta say, I prefer Gingrich. He's smarter and seems more equipped to play the political game. We need a politician that can bridge the party divide, and I haven't seen anything out of Romney that says he can do that. Unfortunately Gingrich brings a fair amount of personal baggage with him, so I'm not sure if he could win an election against Obama.

 

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. It's been a total circus so far.

[Pidesco]

If Gingrich wins the nomination, Obama's second term will be a done deal. But Gingrich won't win.

 

Would you be happy with Gingrich or Romney as President?

[Hurlshort]

If Gingrich wins the nomination, Obama's second term will be a done deal. But Gingrich won't win.

 

Would you be happy with Gingrich or Romney as President?

 

I have no idea, it depends on how effective they are when they reach office. I really look at what I think is the main problem in our country and try to decide who will be best at fixing it.

 

For example, it was bad to have GW Bush as president when we really needed a strong foreign policy leader. We were in two wars and the global economy was starting to meltdown. Then Obama started his term needing strong economic policies to fix a sinking ship, and he was not able to handle it.

 

As a counterpoint, Reagan came into office with perfect timing. He fixed a badly damaged image of the President and rebuilt American confidence. Clinton was also well-timed, he was very good at foreign policy when our economy was flourishing, leading to global implications.

 

Both of those presidents were also capable of working with the other party. I see that as our number one problem today, the two parties spend so much time and energy fighting each other that we aren't getting anything done. I think Gingrich may be the best candidate to restore that working relationship. But yeah, I'm not sure he can avoid getting roasted by the media, and he lacks in the charm department.

[HoonDing]

Isn't Reagan as much a polarizing figure in US politics as, say, Thatcher in UK? Don't only Republicans view him as a good president?

[Pidesco]

So the ethics charges in the case of Gingrich and all the Bain Capital stuff in the case of Romney aren't a problem for you?

[Gorgon]

I like Ron Paul, there seems to be not quite so much hypocrisy emmanating from him. Amazing really that you can still cultivate a reputation for consistency in the American political system. Don't agree with his outmoded minimal state Capitalism ideas, but I can respect it.

[Gorgon]

If Gingrich wins the nomination, Obama's second term will be a done deal. But Gingrich won't win.

 

Would you be happy with Gingrich or Romney as President?

 

I have no idea, it depends on how effective they are when they reach office. I really look at what I think is the main problem in our country and try to decide who will be best at fixing it.

 

For example, it was bad to have GW Bush as president when we really needed a strong foreign policy leader. We were in two wars and the global economy was starting to meltdown. Then Obama started his term needing strong economic policies to fix a sinking ship, and he was not able to handle it.

 

As a counterpoint, Reagan came into office with perfect timing. He fixed a badly damaged image of the President and rebuilt American confidence. Clinton was also well-timed, he was very good at foreign policy when our economy was flourishing, leading to global implications.

 

Both of those presidents were also capable of working with the other party. I see that as our number one problem today, the two parties spend so much time and energy fighting each other that we aren't getting anything done. I think Gingrich may be the best candidate to restore that working relationship. But yeah, I'm not sure he can avoid getting roasted by the media, and he lacks in the charm department.

I don't know where all this Reagan worship comes from. Maybe it's like the wave of 80s retro nostalgia. Well, as someone who actually lived the 80s would tell you, the music and the clothes mostly sucked. It's the reimagining of a golden era that never existed, like Romanticism.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Gorgon

[Calax]

You really think that Gingrich, who is rather notorious for being the guy who started the trend of attack politics, can bridge political gaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOPAC

 

The memo that he produced said "For example, words to use against opponents include decay, failure (fail), collapse(ing), deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, "compassion" is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists" And to describe onesself use words like "share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide."

 

Hell, Doonsbury referred to the bloody thing as the "Magna Carta of attack politics".

[Morgoth]

Romney - serving the Economical royalists only (aka the "1%")

Gingrich - war monger; maniac; lazy eye

Paul - Liberal (aka subtle totalitarian)

 

Sounds like Americans got plenty of good choices here.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Morgoth

[Hurlshort]

So the ethics charges in the case of Gingrich and all the Bain Capital stuff in the case of Romney aren't a problem for you?

 

In regards to the ethics stuff, I've already said he probably has no chance of winning against Obama because of it. But it doesn't personally bother me. As a politician, he reminds me of Nixon. That might sound like a terrible thing, but Nixon was a rather brilliant politician. He was effective, and that's what I want out of a president. They both seem to be willing to ignore morality to get the job done, which realistically is what you need in a leader.

 

As for Romney and the Bain Capital Investment stuff, I can't say I know enough to speak on it. My problem with Romney is he seems to be willing to toe the party line under any circumstance. Gingrich has his own policy ideas and he doesn't care if they are popular, only if they are effective.

[Rosbjerg]

Paul - Liberal (aka subtle totalitarian)

 

Huh? Why is that everyone seems to think that if a politician is a little to the left of themselves they are totalitarian? Libertarians (they true kind, which Paul is, and not the Democrat and European variety) are about as anti-centralization as you can get.

[HoonDing]

 

I'd vote for Ron Paul. At least he didn't brush off Wheelchair Guy (Obama's secret answer to Joe the Plumber).

[Tigranes]

Hurlshot, I'm curious as to why you say Gingrich might be the best equipped to wade past the partisanship. I think when you look at American politics outside of America, and you aren't really into politics per se, it's really difficult to figure out *any* truth you can rely on, because everything is so up in the air and subject to wordplay. Now I'm in the US but it's still hard to figure out who the heck Mitt Romney is (beyond "The Mild-Mannered Winner"), for instance, without doing a loooot of reading.

 

I don't know if Ron Paul should ever actually be elected because it just seems surreal - would he actually end up changing things completely, or what? But I tend to like (rather irrationally) the fact that he sticks to his guns. Apparently.

[Hurlshort]

Hurlshot, I'm curious as to why you say Gingrich might be the best equipped to wade past the partisanship. I think when you look at American politics outside of America, and you aren't really into politics per se, it's really difficult to figure out *any* truth you can rely on, because everything is so up in the air and subject to wordplay. Now I'm in the US but it's still hard to figure out who the heck Mitt Romney is (beyond "The Mild-Mannered Winner"), for instance, without doing a loooot of reading.

 

I don't know if Ron Paul should ever actually be elected because it just seems surreal - would he actually end up changing things completely, or what? But I tend to like (rather irrationally) the fact that he sticks to his guns. Apparently.

 

In regard to Gingrich, he may be a major mudslinger, but when he was Speaker of the House he got things done with Clinton. They balanced budgets and reformed welfare. He has the experience to get things done. I'm not saying I'm in love with him, but the pickings are slim and he's the only proven entity.

 

To address the Ron Paul statement, the big problem I see is that a president doesn't really have the power to make sweeping changes. I keep hearing the Right Wing media make a big hullabaloo over what Obama has done and how he is turning us into socialists, but I just don't see it. He hasn't done much of anything that I can see. The Health Care reform is the closest thing to a big change I've seen, and that looks destined to get hung up in congress and the courts for years.

 

So it's good to have Ron Paul visible and promoting his unique values, but he's basically the Ralph Nader of the Republican party.

 

Oh, I voted for Nader over Gore and Bush I love the guys who mix it up.

[WDeranged]

This clip of Jon Stewart talking about the media's treatment of Ron Paul made me chuckle. Edited January 24, 2012 by WDeranged

[Walsingham]

This clip of Jon Stewart talking about the media's treatment of Ron Paul made me chuckle.

 

Wow. i mean I think the guy is looney tunes. But blanking him out? That's properly cuckoo.

[Junai]

This clip of Jon Stewart talking about the media's treatment of Ron Paul made me chuckle.

 

Wow. i mean I think the guy is looney tunes. But blanking him out? That's properly cuckoo.

Why do you find Paul crazy?

 

Is it because he wants to bring home the troops and end the undeclared wars?

Or because he wants to shut down the privately owned Federal Reserve which prints money

out of thin air and **** up the economy?

 

Wals, if you loosen your tie and unbutton that top-button on your shirt, you'll get some oxygen to the brain,

and you'll be able to turn your head left and right.

 

 

J.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Gorth
Language

[MechanicalLemon]

This clip of Jon Stewart talking about the media's treatment of Ron Paul made me chuckle.

This one is also pretty good. In this clip, Jon Stewart calls out MSNBC for trying to ignore Ron Paul's second place finish in NH.

 

I'm hoping Rand Paul will run for president sometime in the future. That guy shows a lot of promise.

[HoonDing]

I'm hoping Rand Paul will run for president sometime in the future. That guy shows a lot of promise.

Was this deliberate?

[Walsingham]

This clip of Jon Stewart talking about the media's treatment of Ron Paul made me chuckle.

 

Wow. i mean I think the guy is looney tunes. But blanking him out? That's properly cuckoo.

Why do you find Paul crazy?

 

Is it because he wants to bring home the troops and end the undeclared wars?

Or because he wants to shut down the privately owned Federal Reserve which prints money

out of thin air and **** up the economy?

 

Wals, if you loosen your tie and unbutton that top-button on your shirt, you'll get some oxygen to the brain,

and you'll be able to turn your head left and right.

 

 

J.

 

That's good coming from a guy who thinks CIA elves blew up the twin towers.

 

He's a lunatic because you can't take the wrold's largest economy and pretend that it doesn't have to defend interests outside its own borders. It's an infantile position, however populist.

[Gorgon]

So is the notion that one can simply do away with monetary policy and all will be well. Mostly I suppose Republicans aren't receptive to the idea that spending so much money on wars constitutes the same kind of breach of liberty as universal healthcare.