The Republicans Are Still Looking for a Leader

[Platapus]

An interesting article which I believe is pretty accurate.



Who do the Republicans have to offer up as a good challenger to President Obama? They better find someone.


Just as the Democrats learned in 2004, the Republicans will learn that running someone in 2012 on a ticket of "I am not Obama" will probably not going to be enough to unseat an incumbent.



I wonder if serious Republican contenders will wait out the second term (It is always a tough battle to uproot an incumbent) and make a hard charge for 2016?


Lets hope that the RNC has learned the lesson from McCain/Palin. But who does the RNC have on deck?



Barack Obama's poll numbers may be down and the economy struggling, but the Republican Party still lacks the concrete ideas it once had. Angry anti-Obama rhetoric is not enough to make the case that the GOP can fix the nation's vast problems. Even more important, in difficult times voters require a flesh-and-blood alternative to provide leadership and reassurance, or they'll stick with what they've got.



But at this crucial moment, one party honcho after another has eliminated himself as a plausible spokesman. The latest gaffe of party chief Michael Steele — saying the Afghan conflict is a war of Obama's choosing — rendered him, once and for all, irrelevant. The normally low-key House Republican leader John Boehner opted to go toe to toe with the President in late June and came up on the losing side after he suggested that the financial crisis Obama inherited was no bigger than an "ant." The top GOP man in the Senate, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, is a strong inside player but is well aware that he will never be a persuasive public advocate.


The party's possible 2012 presidential candidates are either too polarizing to sway swing voters (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich) or inclined to lie low this year (Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour). Other congressional leaders are far too green or unskilled to mount or keep their balance on the national stage.



The presidential megaphone can almost always drown out the competition, even if the Republicans get their act together and unite over a "Lower taxes, less government" mantra. Unless the GOP — quickly — finds an appealing, aggressive and competent face for itself, Obama is going to have an easier time protecting his Democratic allies and shoring up his own strength than the polls currently suggest.


http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2002380,00.html?cnn=yes

[August]

Wishful thinking mostly. I can't think of a US presidential election held in modern times where the identity of the eventual challenger was obvious two years beforehand.

[Ducimus]

Since Rush Limbaugh talk's the talk, i think he should pony up and walk the walk . :O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

The Republican party has an additional challenge in the growing strength of the libertarian party. That whole "Ron Paul Revolution" bit in the last election seems to have upset things a bit. Even though Paul ran as a Republican, he had a very libertarian platform and his campaign apparently reched a lot of people. Our party office in Fort Worth has never been so busy or so well-supported, to hear the chairman talk about it.

Granted, the libertarian party is very small, but the Republican electorate is actually pretty small too when one considers the number of registered voters. A large gain for the libertarian party may mean only a small loss for the Republicans, but a small loss can be a big deal when faced with Democratical numerical superiority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Republicrats at all, but I'd rather see them in charge than the Democans, especially after this administration. I'm afraid the libertarian party may pull a Bull-Moose on the next election.

[GoldenRivet]

Myself and several of my acquaintances have written letters to two individuals who we feel would be prime conservative candidates.

time will tell.

but we at least planted an idea there.:woot:

[Betonov]

Alan Alda, he almost won the elections in the last season of the west wing :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

The Republican party has an additional challenge in the growing strength of the libertarian party. That whole "Ron Paul Revolution" bit in the last election seems to have upset things a bit. Even though Paul ran as a Republican, he had a very libertarian platform and his campaign apparently reched a lot of people. Our party office in Fort Worth has never been so busy or so well-supported, to hear the chairman talk about it.

Granted, the libertarian party is very small, but the Republican electorate is actually pretty small too when one considers the number of registered voters. A large gain for the libertarian party may mean only a small loss for the Republicans, but a small loss can be a big deal when faced with Democratical numerical superiority.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Republicrats at all, but I'd rather see them in charge than the Democans, especially after this administration. I'm afraid the libertarian party may pull a Bull-Moose on the next election.

I think you speak wisdom here.

[Platapus]

Alan Alda, he almost won the elections in the last season of the west wing :O:


Alphonso Joseph D'Abruzzo?

It just does not flow well. :nope:

[SteamWake]

The problem the republican party has is that they will not take a conservative stance.

Therefore the tea party movement is splintering away from them.

But regardless I think incumbents in general had better anticipate a bloodbath at the mid terms.

Fortunatly (to me) that means Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reed :yeah:

That will change the landscape considerably.

[AVGWarhawk]

To be honest SW that is what Washington needs. It needs a shake up of those that have engrained their arses in the seats at the Capital. It seems like they feel it is their entitlement. Time for them to go.....

[Platapus]

To be honest SW that is what Washington needs. It needs a shake up of those that have engrained their arses in the seats at the Capital. It seems like they feel it is their entitlement. Time for them to go.....

The only people who can make this change are the voters. As long as we have voters who only look at the letter behind a candidate's name, this problem may never be fixed.

I think it would be great if all political affiliations be removed from ballots. At least that would force the voters to at least look at the names. :nope:

The way the ballots are today, we could remove the names and just put the party affiliation and people would be happy. :damn::damn::damn::damn:

[thorn69]

All the Conservatives have to do is win the House and Senate to technically silence Obozo. If he doesn't get the boot it won't really matter. He will be powerless for the most part.

I honestly don't think it's going to take too much to have Obozo removed from power anyways. Many liberals are not happy with him and feel betrayed. I've seen more liberals convert to the Conservative party this year than any other year in my life and many have said they won't vote for Obozo a second time. So we'll just have to wait and see. I think November will show us how fast a party can be tossed out on their butts! :up:

[mookiemookie]

The problem the republican party has is that they will not take a conservative stance.

Therefore the tea party movement is splintering away from them.

But regardless I think incumbents in general had better anticipate a bloodbath at the mid terms.

Fortunatly (to me) that means Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reed :yeah:

That will change the landscape considerably.

Well, from the other side, the problem I see with the GOP is that they're trying to outdo each other on how "conservative" they are. By moving further and further into this hardline, far right stance, I think they're alienating a lot of moderate Republicans. It's creating a very extreme form of Republicanism. It may satisfy the base, the true believers, but they run the risk of losing out on the moderate votes. And those are the ones that decide elections.

[Platapus]

By moving further and further into this hardline, far right stance, I think they're alienating a lot of moderate Republicans. It's creating a very extreme form of Republicanism. It may satisfy the base, the true believers, but they run the risk of losing out on the moderate votes. And those are the ones that decide elections.

That is exactly why I am a "recovering Republican" and now consider myself a moderate independent.

[Aramike]

Well, from the other side, the problem I see with the GOP is that they're trying to outdo each other on how "conservative" they are. By moving further and further into this hardline, far right stance, I think they're alienating a lot of moderate Republicans. I disagree. They are moving further and further to the right, yes - but that's from the starting position of being quite to the LEFT of moderate conservatism.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I see no leader for the Republicans. Sarah Palin? Uh, no. McCain is getting too old, and sold out, anyway.

That bloodbath you're looking for in November might not happen if the Tea Party splits the Republican vote.

I'm rather sickened with Obama's attempt to reach out to the GOP, who've always reacted w/a a complete "f__k you" to the attempt. He should have steamrolled them while he had Democratic majorities in Congress, just like they'd have done if positions were reversed. He seems to be a real weenie.

[August]

I disagree. They are moving further and further to the right, yes - but that's from the starting position of being quite to the LEFT of moderate conservatism.


You hit the nail on the head right there Mike. It's Republican's acting like spend and tax Democrats which got them bounced out of office in the first place.

[Moeceefus]

I wish we could just fire every career politician out there and replace them with neutral people with no party affiliation. People who make good decisions for the country because they are good decisions for the country, not because it benefits a party or a special interest. Until this happens, Republicans and Democrats will continue selling the country to the highest bidder. :damn:

[thorn69]

I wish we could just fire every career politician out there and replace them with neutral people with no party affiliation. People who make good decisions for the country because they are good decisions for the country, not because it benefits a party or a special interest. Until this happens, Republicans and Democrats will continue selling the country to the highest bidder. :damn:

The republicans tried this with Sarah Palin and she was slapped from the moment she entered the political arena by people accusing her of being too much of a "Betty homemaker" normal person. Imagine if some simple farmer tried to run for president. People would just slam him for being too simple. But simple is EXACTLY what America needs. Somebody with an actual heart and some real morals. Not one of these high profile/all about the money and fame types.

[Zachstar]

2010 is going to be for the democrats what 2012 is going to do for the republicans.

Rebubs will ride the tea party fiasco to 2010 victory but it will be REAL old in 2010. And by real old I mean real old. Its only hanging onto voters attention right now because they want someone new to blame for their economic woes.

I think the tea party values in 2012 will sink tea party loving candidates like a ton of bricks. Because when democrats decide to be progressive again (Lack of is what will cause repub victory in 2010) and it gets shut down by republicans the playbook will be set for a 2006 all over again.

[Platapus]

I wish we could just fire every career politician out there and replace them with neutral people with no party affiliation. People who make good decisions for the country because they are good decisions for the country, not because it benefits a party or a special interest. Until this happens, Republicans and Democrats will continue selling the country to the highest bidder. :damn:

We already can

Every 2 years for a Representative.
Every 4 years for a President.
Every 6 years for a Senator.

Unfortunately, to be elected requires advertisement. Advertisement requires money. Money requires a bunch of people giving money, a bunch of people requires organization. An organization requires a leader and an agreed upon goal. Oh crap now we are back to political parties again :damn::damn::damn:

While I completely agree with our fore fathers when they warned of the evil of political parties, in today's American culture, I am afraid we are stuck with them. :down:

I truly wish it were not so.

[SteamWake]

Well, from the other side, the problem I see with the GOP is that they're trying to outdo each other on how "conservative" they are. .

Maybe amongst some up and comming 'new' candidates and a few sitting goveners but I certainly dont see that behaviour on capitol hill.

[Platapus]

The republicans tried this with Sarah Palin and she was slapped from the moment she entered the political arena by people accusing her of being too much of a "Betty homemaker" normal person. Imagine if some simple farmer tried to run for president. People would just slam him for being too simple. But simple is EXACTLY what America needs. Somebody with an actual heart and some real morals. Not one of these high profile/all about the money and fame types.


As we learned with George W Bush and Obama (and other Presidents throughout our history) the office of President is not an entry level job. :nope:

No I don't want a simple farmer or "average citizen" to be President. I want someone with experience in the public sector and in public administration. I want someone with the education to be able to make logical critical decisions, not react emotionally. I want someone with the experience to use "The System" but has the judgment to make the decisions we need (however the hell that word is defined), not necessary the decisions we like. A person who can handle the reality of today at the same time look towards the future. A person who makes decisions on facts, not fears; evidence, not emotions; pragmatism, not politics.

Well I am pushing 50 real hard and unfortunately, I have yet to see a President live up to my standards. Some have been pretty good, some pretty bad. Anyway, that's my problem.

But I disagree with your post. The solution is not to get someone totally inexperienced in politics (the congress will simply eat them alive). We need a person who understands "The System" and can use the system towards a goal that is for the "betterment" of our nation.... however the hell that word can be defined.

[mookiemookie]

As we learned with George W Bush and Obama (and other Presidents throughout our history) the office of President is not an entry level job. :nope:

No I don't want a simple farmer or "average citizen" to be President. I want someone with experience in the public sector and in public administration. I want someone with the education to be able to make logical critical decisions, not react emotionally. I want someone with the experience to use "The System" but has the judgment to make the decisions we need (however the hell that word is defined), not necessary the decisions we like. A person who can handle the reality of today at the same time look towards the future. A person who makes decisions on facts, not fears; evidence, not emotions; pragmatism, not politics.

Well I am pushing 50 real hard and unfortunately, I have yet to see a President live up to my standards. Some have been pretty good, some pretty bad. Anyway, that's my problem.

But I disagree with your post. The solution is not to get someone totally inexperienced in politics (the congress will simply eat them alive). We need a person who understands "The System" and can use the system towards a goal that is for the "betterment" of our nation.... however the hell that word can be defined.

Great point.

[Sailor Steve]

No I don't want a simple farmer or "average citizen" to be President.
So, you wouldn't vote for Washington then? :D

[thorn69]

As we learned with George W Bush and Obama (and other Presidents throughout our history) the office of President is not an entry level job. :nope:

No I don't want a simple farmer or "average citizen" to be President. I want someone with experience in the public sector and in public administration. I want someone with the education to be able to make logical critical decisions, not react emotionally. I want someone with the experience to use "The System" but has the judgment to make the decisions we need (however the hell that word is defined), not necessary the decisions we like. A person who can handle the reality of today at the same time look towards the future. A person who makes decisions on facts, not fears; evidence, not emotions; pragmatism, not politics.

Well I am pushing 50 real hard and unfortunately, I have yet to see a President live up to my standards. Some have been pretty good, some pretty bad. Anyway, that's my problem.

But I disagree with your post. The solution is not to get someone totally inexperienced in politics (the congress will simply eat them alive). We need a person who understands "The System" and can use the system towards a goal that is for the "betterment" of our nation.... however the hell that word can be defined.

I think part of the problem IS the "system". It needs to be changed and simplified. For instance, if I was President, I would fire everybody working for the IRS. There would be no more IRS. I would just use a flat tax system that's "simple" to understand so the common citizen doesn't have to pay H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt to file their yearly return. There's no sense in spending tons of US tax dollars to employ people to make sure people are paying their taxes! It's a worthless agency that costing taxpayers tons of money to operate! With a flat tax system and the invent of modern technology you can easily keep people in check and make sure they are paying taxes and make the system a lot easier to understand.

[SteamWake]

I think part of the problem IS the "system". It needs to be changed and simplified. For instance, if I was President, I would fire everybody working for the IRS. There would be no more IRS. I would just use a flat tax system that's "simple" to understand so the common citizen doesn't have to pay H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt to file their yearly return. There's no sense in spending tons of US tax dollars to employ people to make sure people are paying their taxes! It's a worthless agency that costing taxpayers tons of money to operate! With a flat tax system and the invent of modern technology you can easily keep people in check and make sure they are paying taxes and make the system a lot easier to understand.

Ron Paul is that you??

Just keep in mind at least for the moment the IRS is el presidente's best friend. After all they will be a key player in 'universal health care' aka re-distribution of wealth.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3968-obama-recess-appointment-calls-for-redistribution-of-wealth

[thorn69]

Ron Paul is that you??

Just keep in mind at least for the moment the IRS is el presidente's best friend. After all they will be a key player in 'universal health care' aka re-distribution of wealth.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3968-obama-recess-appointment-calls-for-redistribution-of-wealth


No, but I like some of Ron Paul's views.

Hopefully we can repeal the health care bill. I think most Americans were and still are against it. So if we can get a conservative presence in D.C. then we might have a chance of repeal. Hopefully that's what will happen. :up:

[August]

For instance, if I was President, I would fire everybody working for the IRS. There would be no more IRS. I would just use a flat tax system that's "simple" to understand so the common citizen doesn't have to pay H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt to file their yearly return. There's no sense in spending tons of US tax dollars to employ people to make sure people are paying their taxes! It's a worthless agency that costing taxpayers tons of money to operate! With a flat tax system and the invent of modern technology you can easily keep people in check and make sure they are paying taxes and make the system a lot easier to understand.

That may be but if you were President you couldn't do any of that. Sure you might be able to fire the director and some of the management but you can't disband an agency or change a tax system created by Congress.

[Skybird]

While Obama has eaten up most of the credit he was given in advance, and while it appears to be easy to beat him in the next election, indeed the problem is that the Reps have no reasonable leadership, and so far I cannot imagine any candidate of theirs who indeed would hand the expected defeat to Obama.

In other words: currently it seems you will get the choice between Democratic plague and Republican cholera.

If I were American I would campaign for the dissolving of both parties and boycotting any candidate of theirs. :salute: Oh, and shoot those million-heavy business lobbies, while you're already at it. Trying to erode an election result and betraying the voters via corruption, is not considered to be good democratic style, but only leads to organised crime.

[Platapus]

So, you wouldn't vote for Washington then? :D

Probably not. But then I am one of those people who feels that history has been, perhaps, a little too kind about the Washington Presidency.

[Platapus]

That may be but if you were President you couldn't do any of that. Sure you might be able to fire the director and some of the management but you can't disband an agency or change a tax system created by Congress.

I think he is one of those people who thinks that the President can "just change" stuff any time the President wants to. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Probably not. But then I am one of those people who feels that history has been, perhaps, a little too kind about the Washington Presidency.
You have company in that asessment. While I always rank Washington #1 based on his attitude toward the country and the office and his refusal to keep or abuse power, I've always felt that he was a little weak in the actual running of things. He strove to be neutral in everything, yet when Jefferson left his cabinet he was led into some bad decisions because of his willingness to trust Hamilton.

[thorn69]

That may be but if you were President you couldn't do any of that. Sure you might be able to fire the director and some of the management but you can't disband an agency or change a tax system created by Congress.


It wouldn't be hard to get rid of the IRS. They're not like everybody's favorite federal agency ya know?! :har:

The people in the US wouldn't be against THAT sort of change - especially if a simpler tax system (flat tax) idea was the end result. It's a fair tax system and would generate MORE tax revenue even at a rate of $0.01 across the board. The best part is it promotes capitalism and encourages people to get out there and earn as much money as possible because they know they won't be hit unfairly for earning their money! Who wants to be rich under Obama? Who even wants to work under an Obama regime? Nobody likes being forced to work for other people.

There's just no incentive for anybody to work when the government provides everything for them by stealing money from some poor saps paycheck and hands that money over to a bunch of lame and lazy people who refuse to get a job! Makes that poor sap wonder why he/she is even working when they can just stay at home. It won't take long for everyone to jump on the lame and lazy bandwagon and refuse to work! Then what's the government going to do? Get the troops to come in with guns and tell people what they're going to do for work! Socialism leads to desperate governments that are willing to aim guns at their own people to keep the government rich, prosperous, and running!

[mookiemookie]

The people in the US wouldn't be against THAT sort of change - especially if a simpler tax system (flat tax) idea was the end result. You don't have to eliminate the progressive taxation system in order to simplify it. You only have to close the loopholes and exemptions.

It's a fair tax system and would generate MORE tax revenue even at a rate of $0.01 across the board. Incorrect on both counts. A flat tax would reduce the amount of taxes paid by the rich - you have to make that up by taxing the middle class more or by going even more into a deficit.

The best part is it promotes capitalism and encourages people to get out there and earn as much money as possible because they know they won't be hit unfairly for earning their money! Wrong. Show me one person that's going to give up extra income because of the tax rate. If I offered you an extra $100,000 a year, you're going to tell me you won't take it because you're going to have to pay taxes out of it?! BULLPUCKY! There's studies out there that show that people's work habits are relatively unimpacted by tax rates...people still worked in the Soviet Union under an effective 100% tax rate.

Furthermore, I'm not sure about you, but my hours are set by my employer. I don't have a choice in working fewer hours if the tax rate goes up or more hours if it went down. I would wager that's the case for the majority of Americans as well.

Who wants to be rich under Obama? ME! I'd love to have to pay 35% in taxes on a million dollars a year. Because what's left is a hell of a lot more than what I'm making now!

Who even wants to work under an Obama regime? Tax rates are lower now than they were under Clinton. Which were lower than they were under Reagan. Which were lower than they were under Carter. Your hysterics and hyperbole do your argument no credit.

[Platapus]

Wrong. Show me one person that's going to give up extra income because of the tax rate. If I offered you an extra $100,000 a year, you're going to tell me you won't take it because you're going to have to pay taxes out of it?! BULLPUCKY! There's studies out there that show that people's work habits are relatively unimpacted by tax rates...people still worked in the Soviet Union under an effective 100% tax rate.


Correct. :salute:

One of my fantasy dreams is to be in a position where, at today's tax rate I pay $1,000,000 in taxes every year. That would be awesome.

If you read Herzberg's Hierarchy, his position was the money was a maintainer not a motivator for work.

Not everyone who works is solely motivated by money.

[Zachstar]

Lovely the "One tax" idiocy has shown its ugly head again. Not on this topic please.

As for Obama being even remotely able to be defeated. Doubtful, Congress is easy to say "hit the road jack I want this guy instead" However most of the time for the presidency is 2 terms. Voters are mad at Obama for not fixing their problems overnight but the Obama name is so well entrenched now that it will likely be at worst a Bush 2 all over again. People often voted bush because the bush brand was well entrenched.

Let me know if Obama decides to go Homosexual after cheating on his wife somehow or eats a baby on live TV because that is about the only way he will lose in 2012.

[Platapus]

People often voted bush because the bush brand was well entrenched.




I disagree. Bush was reelected in 2004 because the Democrats were unable to nominate someone who the public saw as a significant improvement to Bush. Remember, most of Kerry's campaign was "I am not Bush". That is not going to sway voters (Just ask the residents of Virginia about the last gubernatorial election).

In order to unseat any incumbent, two things have to be satisfied.

1. The people need to be sufficiently disproving of the incumbent

and

2. The People need to have an alternative that offers something significantly different and better.

Lacking that, the "Tie" goes to the incumbent.

We had "1" in 2004, but not "2" hence Bush reelected.
We may have "1" in 2012, but it is up to the GOP to see if we have "2".

If they don't; if the GOP makes the same mistake the Democrats made in 2004-- meaning running a candidate who's platform is "I am not Obama". The tie, will go to the incumbent.

For many voters, it seems to be "Better the devil you know, then the devil you don't know."

Personally, I am more of the "when in doubt, vote em out" type of guy. But that's just me.

[August]

I don't really care if President Obama wins a 2nd term or not. IMO it's far more important that control of at least one house of Congress, preferably the Senate, goes to the Republicans.

The way I see it, it's never a good thing when one party controls the whole enchilada. Shared power means either bipartisan consensus or immobility. Either one is good to me.

[thorn69]

Lovely the "One tax" idiocy has shown its ugly head again. Not on this topic please.

As for Obama being even remotely able to be defeated. Doubtful, Congress is easy to say "hit the road jack I want this guy instead" However most of the time for the presidency is 2 terms. Voters are mad at Obama for not fixing their problems overnight but the Obama name is so well entrenched now that it will likely be at worst a Bush 2 all over again. People often voted bush because the bush brand was well entrenched.

Let me know if Obama decides to go Homosexual after cheating on his wife somehow or eats a baby on live TV because that is about the only way he will lose in 2012.

Zachstar, I'm so glad you have no political power yourself. I could imagine that if you were running things you would change the name of the White house to the Black house for some stupid reason! You just seem to be so backwards and twisted in your thinking that it would be almost comical if it wasn't so sad! :nope:

[Platapus]

I don't really care if President Obama wins a 2nd term or not. IMO it's far more important that control of at least one house of Congress, preferably the Senate, goes to the Republicans.

The way I see it, it's never a good thing when one party controls the whole enchilada. Shared power means either bipartisan consensus or immobility. Either one is good to me.

On general purposes, I would agree with you. But what if it is the will of the people, via elections, that the congress is controlled by the same party as the Presidency?

[August]

But what if it is the will of the people, via elections, that the congress is controlled by the same party as the Presidency?

I don't understand your question. What if it is or isn't?

[Platapus]

I agreed with what you wrote. I also think it is not good for our country when the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branchs of our government are controlled by one party.

Fortunately or unfortunately, this is wholly decided by the voters who, via elections, choose the composition of our government.

There does not seem to be much we can, or even should do about it. There is no way we can legislate that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branches must be of different parties. Our only hope is that the American voters can think about the consequences (intended or unintended) of having one party in control of the government.


Did I just write about American voters thinking? :har::har::har::har::har:

Sorry my bad. I was in my little fantasy world there for a moment.

A boy can only dream...

[August]

A boy can only dream...

Have a little faith Platapus. We American voters have managed to muddle our way through this grand experiment for over 200 years.

Also the choices aren't between doing nothing or legislation. There is a third path and we're doing it right now.

[Zachstar]

Well it is quite obvious that republicans will likely gain control of the house or the senate. When democrats put their faith in idiots like Blanch Lincoln and Harry Reid we are pretty much doomed to massive amounts of voter apathy which will cost us dearly.

I am kind of in the same boat agreeing that one or the other ought to go repub. Of course the reason why I say this is because democrats have lately been trying to play it "safe" and be more republican like. But they have GREATLY alienated the base by doing so. For instance 20 billion for solar power where a chunk of it goes to a company from SPAIN to build the plant. While smaller better tech American companies got ignored. "Too big to fail" has GOT to stop or democrats will end up with just the Presidentcy in 2012. Voters will kick em out in droves.

[Platapus]

Have a little faith Platapus. We American voters have managed to muddle our way through this grand experiment for over 200 years.

Oh I have a lot of faith in the American voter. Just not a lot of good faith. After reading Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies choose Bad Policies", my faith in the American Voter has been validated.

Also the choices aren't between doing nothing or legislation. There is a third path and we're doing it right now.

Posting anonymously on a video game forum? :D

Perhaps we would be better worrying less about what political party is in control and more about what people are in control? But alas, we seem to be stuck with political parties, and political parties will most likely always be first concerned with the party and second with everything else. :shifty:

[Moeceefus]

Zachstar, I'm so glad you have no political power yourself. I could imagine that if you were running things you would change the name of the White house to the Black house for some stupid reason! You just seem to be so backwards and twisted in your thinking that it would be almost comical if it wasn't so sad! :nope:



Do you have to sound like a douchebag bigot in every thread you post in? How do you even come up with this line after Zachstar's post?

[August]

Oh I have a lot of faith in the American voter. Just not a lot of good faith. After reading Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies choose Bad Policies", my faith in the American Voter has been validated.

Well it's better than any other system of government you could name so learn to deal with it! :DL



Posting anonymously on a video game forum? :D

Better than nothing but i agree it's a propagandists dream.

Perhaps we would be better worrying less about what political party is in control and more about what people are in control? But alas, we seem to be stuck with political parties, and political parties will most likely always be first concerned with the party and second with everything else. :shifty:

We can't get rid of them. Our Freedom of Assembly makes even trying to do so unconstitutional. That's why I want to see power split between them. It tends to limit the damage they can do.

[Zachstar]

Do you have to sound like a douchebag bigot in every thread you post in? How do you even come up with this line after Zachstar's post?

Ignore him now. The only reason he is still here is Neal or another Admin normally has no need to stay glued to the forum. Things sometimes get heated with politics in here but not to this level.

He has been reported enough and all Neal has to do is look at his posting history for just today to know what needs to be done with his account. Let Neal handle it. I wonder tho if he will dare try to call Neal a terrorist sympathizer (Tho from what I understand Neal is right of center)

[thorn69]

Ignore him now. The only reason he is still here is Neal or another Admin normally has no need to stay glued to the forum. Things sometimes get heated with politics in here but not to this level. You see, you can't take the heat when opinions differ from your own! You just admitted that!


He has been reported enough and all Neal has to do is look at his posting history for just today to know what needs to be done with his account. Let Neal handle it. I wonder tho if he will dare try to call Neal a terrorist sympathizer (Tho from what I understand Neal is right of center)If Neal decides to kick me off here then that's well within his right. I'll live. What are you gonna do when he decides to kick you off here? Oh noes! :wah:

[Sailor Steve]

You see, you can't take the heat when opinions differ from your own! You just admitted that!
Thorn, I agree with your politics in this case. I would argue with Zachstar on this until the cows come home, because I think he is way off base.

But this
Zachstar, I'm so glad you have no political power yourself. I could imagine that if you were running things you would change the name of the White house to the Black house for some stupid reason! You just seem to be so backwards and twisted in your thinking that it would be almost comical if it wasn't so sad! :nope:
Is not an opinion but an out-and-out attack. This is the kind of thing we're talking about when we say you are out of line and over the edge. This is not debate, it's mud-slinging at its worst, and we to be more civil in our discussions around here.

[Platapus]

Well it's better than any other system of government you could name so learn to deal with it! :DL



I can't argue with that. Absolutely correct!

Which brings up another interesting question: Would/could there be a "better" system?

[mookiemookie]

Is not an opinion but an out-and-out attack. This is the kind of thing we're talking about when we say you are out of line and over the edge. This is not debate, it's mud-slinging at its worst, and we to be more civil in our discussions around here.

He knows this already and has for years, Steve.

http://www.turbochargerengineering.com/store/images/products/tial-sport-v44-waste-gate.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Nah, it's not him. I thought it might be at first, but this is not really his style.

[tater]

You don't have to eliminate the progressive taxation system in order to simplify it. You only have to close the loopholes and exemptions.

Incorrect on both counts. A flat tax would reduce the amount of taxes paid by the rich - you have to make that up by taxing the middle class more or by going even more into a deficit.

Wrong. Show me one person that's going to give up extra income because of the tax rate. If I offered you an extra $100,000 a year, you're going to tell me you won't take it because you're going to have to pay taxes out of it?! BULLPUCKY! There's studies out there that show that people's work habits are relatively unimpacted by tax rates...people still worked in the Soviet Union under an effective 100% tax rate.

Furthermore, I'm not sure about you, but my hours are set by my employer. I don't have a choice in working fewer hours if the tax rate goes up or more hours if it went down. I would wager that's the case for the majority of Americans as well.

ME! I'd love to have to pay 35% in taxes on a million dollars a year. Because what's left is a hell of a lot more than what I'm making now!

Tax rates are lower now than they were under Clinton. Which were lower than they were under Reagan. Which were lower than they were under Carter. Your hysterics and hyperbole do your argument no credit.

Mookie, the first thing is that proposed flat or "fair" tax systems are in fact progressive. All proposals include a tax discount for the poverty level. More in fact for the Flat Tax proposals I've seen. As I recall (this is from memory from the Presidential race where he ran) Forbes talked about the first 30-something grand on the flat tax (for a family filing jointly) to be tax free. So if you have a 20% flat tax, and you gross, whatever it was, say 36k, then you pay $0.00 in tax. If you make 37k, you'd pay $200 in tax (0.54% tax). If you made 72k you'd pay $7200 in tax (10%).

The Fair Tax also discounts the tax rate times some poverty level such that if you make the poverty income exactly you pay zero tax, if you make (and spend) $1 more, you pay only the tax on that dollar, etc.

All tax systems hit the rich with more taxes. The preferred goal is simplicity, and predictability.

I'd favor either system, even if I paid slightly more because it beats the current insanity. We literally have no clue how much we'll owe from year to year. No clue, it's a black box. Heck, it's so complicated we have the accountant do it and just sign the "sign here" post-it notes on the novel that is our tax return.

Simplicity means it's easier to plan, and harder to avoid taxes. In our case, we are pretty conservative and always overpay (grossly overpay, in fact). Much better to take in $X and put 0.19X dollars in a tax account and be SURE it's the right amount.

[Onkel Neal]

We prefer not to kick off anyone. Some people post here to have sincere discussions with others, and argue points of view. That's fine. Some people post here looking for a fight, trying to be as provacative as they can, because they have issues in real life they cannot resolve. Well, we try not to restrict free speech, but when the speech becomes repetitve, provacative to the point of disrupting the forum, we ask that they take a break.

Yes, agree to disagree, but try not to be an angry, bitter a-hole. Even if you are one in real life. This is a friendly forum, and we would like to be friendly to you, if you let us.

Also, please don't spam the moderators with BPRs. One or two will get the point across. If you cannot stand another member, use your ignore feature.

Neal

[mookiemookie]

Nah, it's not him. I thought it might be at first, but this is not really his style.

Ah. Could have (and did) fooled me.

[tater]

Specifically regarding a flat vs a progressive tax, look at reality. Any progressive tax WILL come with incredibly complex rules, loopholes, etc. A new tax system should have as it's goal eliminating a huge % of IRS employees, AND a gross simplification of the tax pre required on taxpayers and employers (sorry, accountants and tax preparers out there, find other work).

No "Adjusted Gross Income," just "income." No capital gains, no death tax, nothing. Money gets paid to you (from anyone), and you pay, period. This should ideally also include all payroll taxes.

Paying ZERO taxes would be the lower limit. on a flat tax system. No "here's a $1000 "refund" for the $0.00 you paid in taxes." The flat tax systems in fact include a sort of EITC scheme for simplicity. The way it usually is formulated, they'd take a poverty level, say ~$11,000, and say the tax rate is 20% for a single person. Every single taxpayer would get 0.20*11k = $2200 in the mail each year (indexed up with the poverty level). So with 2 taxpayers you'd get $4400 as a "refund." Even "rich" people would get this—their first 11k spent is tax free.

So a couple making only 22k a year would get a 20% income boost from the feds. A couple making 38k would, assuming they paid out every penny earned as expenditures, pay 10% in taxes (that INCLUDES all payroll taxes—right now their FICA is 15.3% alone). If some couple is making 122k, then they are paying 18.2% tax. Spend 500k a year and you pay 19.56% tax (98 grand). Actually, for 500k, that's a tax cut compared to right now, it only starts being a tax increase for people like John Kerry, who paid some small % effective tax rate the year before he ran for Pres (~15% as I recall).

Those are made up numbers, I think the fair tax might really be more like 23%.

As an aside, there was a local magazine article about what people make, and they showed an ABQ UPS driver (20+ years with UPS) who makes $78,000 a year. That's a good reality check for people who think that 100k is "rich." A couple who both work for UPS as DRIVERS ("working class") could be making over $150,000 a year! I'm still stunned by the 78k, that's nearly what family practice docs make—with 11 years of higher education.

[SteamWake]

Yea.. that Palin gal is not really a factor ;)


JUNEAU, Alaska -- Sarah Palin's political action committee contributed at least $87,500 to candidates she's endorsed in the last few months, according to a report filed Sunday with the Federal Elections Commission.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/11/palins-political-action-committee-shells-g-candidates/

[Skybird]

When Palin "retired", I expressed doubts this would mean the end of her presidency plans for all future to come, and some people immediately laughed at me. I hope my scepticism does not get justified late? :-?

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article8440212/Spendengelder-deuten-auf-Palin-Kandidatur-2012-hin.html

"Ammount of donations collected indicates Palin's candidacy."

Not to imagine. Naivety versus stupidity, biased education versus lack of education. Fool-on-the hill versus dope-in-the valley. Even the Republican party cannot be that stupid or that eager to reclaim power, no matter how high the price...!?

[Bilge_Rat]

We are only in 2010, but Obama looks almost unbeatable in 2012. I don't see anyone in the Republican party who can beat him. I am sure the WH is hoping the Republicans do something suicidal like nominate Palin or Romney to make their job even easier, after all they did manage to shoot themselves in the foot in Nevada and give Reid a decent shot at re-election. The only candidate I see who could give Obama a run for his money would be Scott Brown, but he is probably way too liberal for "The Base".

As to Congress, the Republicans were in power in 1995-2007 and controlled the WH in 2001-09. Most of the current mess (Bank Bailout, huge deficits, housing meltdown) is their responsibility. I don't see how putting the same ideological clowns back in power solves anything.

The Republican Party is bankrupt of ideas. It has become the mouthpiece of the religious right and its economic policies is not much more than just advocating a return to 19th century savage capitalism. It needs new ideas that are practical and based on the realities of 2010.

Look at Canada: not one Canadian Bank required a bailout in 2008-09, the housing market is still strong, we are back to the same job level as before the recession and the deficit is very mild compared to the USA. Some of these are, of course, because of economic factors, but government policies also have an impact, such as stict regulation of Banking, consumer lending, tight controls over taxes and government spending.

I am not saying Canada has all the answers, but both Republicans and Democrats have to start thinking out of their respective boxes if they want to get the USA out of its curent mess. After all, is'nt the definition of insanity to keep repeating the same action over and over again, but to expect a different result?

[Skybird]

Obama has already bled dearly, and a signficant group of his former core-fans are dissappointed and disillusioned : he did not deliver on guantanamo, the health reform is a highly controversial and anything but agreed upon issue in America, the two wars last on, and there was a spectacular spending frenzy. Plus his middle east policy - if one is optimistic enough to call his naive and prematurely biased views on the ME a policy - has brought that a considerable ammount of the conservatives and the powerful pro-Israel lobby up in arms. I seriously doubt that he is "unbeatable" now - even when the Reps nominate an intellectual vacuum like venomous Palin.

And I must admit I cannot form a decision on which of the two is the bigger evil. Not to imagine that Obama gets another four years. Not to imagine that Palin gets the helm. I consider both to be absolute disasters - for America, and for the West in general.

A culture, a society should be considered to bring up the great minds and responsible leaders by whose guiding - and guarding of creative mind-work of others - the civilisation continues to shine. That there is such a desperate lack of such minds and instead we just get shallow narcism, incompetence, and lobbyism, maybe tells something about the state of things in our culture(s).

[thorn69]

Obama has already bled dearly, and a signficant group of his former core-fans are dissappointed: he did not deliver on guantanamo, the health reform is a highly controversial and anything but agreed upon issue in America, the two wars last on, and there was a spectacular spending frenzy. I seriously doubt that he is "unbeatable" now - even when the Reps nominate an intellectual vacuum like Palin.

And I must admit I cannot form a decision on which of the two is the bigger evil. Not to imagine that Obama gets another four years. Not to imagine that Palin gets the helm. I consider both to be absolute disasters - for America, and for the West in general.

The US can not afford to have Obama in power for another 4 years. He's financially crippling an already crippled country.

[SteamWake]

When Palin "retired", I expressed doubts this would mean the end of her presidency plans for all future to come, and some people immediately laughed at me. I hope my scepticism does not get justified late? :-?



http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article8440212/Spendengelder-deuten-auf-Palin-Kandidatur-2012-hin.html

"Ammount of donations collected indicates Palin's candidacy."


Not to imagine. Naivety versus stupidity, biased education versus lack of education. Fool-on-the hill versus dope-in-the valley. Even the Republican party cannot be that stupid or that eager to reclaim power, no matter how high the price...!?


No need to worry she will not run, she can do more from the private sector as she has already proven. ;)

Obama unbeatable in 2012 ... LOL wtf just LOL....

[tater]

The Republican control of Congress was nothing at all like the recent Democratic control. The latter have had a supermajority outright, and have been very close even with Brown in. The R congress was a 51% thing, never enough to dictate anything to the democrats other than setting committees.

This is a huge difference, though perhaps one lost on the majority of the electorate. Functionally, nothing happened during the Bush years without the consent of the democrat leadership because they could filibuster.

[Bilge_Rat]

President Palin.....the mind shudders...

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4793/deadzone001.jpg


p.s. 10 points to the first one to get the obscure film reference. Jimbuna, Google is not going to help you on this one.

[SteamWake]

We are only in 2010, but Obama looks almost unbeatable in 2012.

About 60 percent of American voters say they are losing both faith and confidence in President Obama, according to a public opinion poll published Tuesday.
The results of the Washington Post/ABC News poll are a 180-degree turn from the start of Obama’s presidency 18 months ago, with nearly 60 percent of those polled saying they lack faith in the commander-in-chief. In January of 2009, 60 percent said they were confident in his decision-making.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/poll-majority-americans-losing-faith-obama/

[Bilge_Rat]

SW, all fine and dandy, but as you know in 2012, the choice will be between Obama and the republican nominee.

a president up for re-election has the advantage of incumbency and has to either seriously screw up his first term (Hoover, Johnson, Carter) or face a charismatic candidate (Clinton) to lose.

Voters won't dump Obama and elect anyone. The Republicans have to nominate a candidate who voters will want to vote for and who will run a better campaign than President Obama.

Who will that be? 2012 is tomorrow as far as the presidency is concerned. All the potential Republican candidates are already known.

[mookiemookie]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/poll-majority-americans-losing-faith-obama/

So what? Dubya was reelected with similar poll numbers. It means absolutely nothing. But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

In short:

"Yuh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Yuh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

:O:

[Sailor Steve]

a president up for re-election has the advantage of incumbency and has to either seriously screw up his first term (Hoover, Johnson, Carter) or face a charismatic candidate (Clinton) to lose.
Johnson didn't lose the election. He opted not to run for a second term, so was never part of the election.

Bush Sr. arguably lost to Clinton not because of the latter's charisma, but because he screwed up his first term with the "Read my lips" debacle. That he was suckered into that by the Democrat Congress is irrelevant in the eyes of most people.

Likewise Carter could arguably be lumped into the second group because of Reagan's appeal to the people.

[Bilge_Rat]

Johnson didn't lose the election. He opted not to run for a second term, so was never part of the election.

true, but he opted not to run for re-election because he did not think he could get elected in 68.

Bush Sr. arguably lost to Clinton not because of the latter's charisma, but because he screwed up his first term with the "Read my lips" debacle. That he was suckered into that by the Democrat Congress is irrelevant in the eyes of most people.

that was part of it, the 91-92 recession also did not help, but I remember in 92, that a lot of voters reacted to Clinton as they did to Obama in 08. He was seen as Kennedy-esque, a charismatic leader from a new generation who would fix all the nation's ills.

Likewise Carter could arguably be lumped into the second group because of Reagan's appeal to the people.

true.

[SteamWake]

All I am saying is the perception I get from the vast majority of 'involved' voters is pretty much "anyone but Obama".

[tater]

Polling tends to show rather strong support for "anyone but Obama."

That said, as incumbent I agree that it is his race to lose—particularly with no real Republican star in the wings. Palin is a weak candidate, IMO. The fact that she's no weaker than Obama in terms of gravitas doesn't matter (funny that you didn't hear anything except "gravitas" from the press WRT Bush during his election (saying he lacked it), but it was virtually unmentioned WRT Obama, and he clearly lacked it (and does still, he's out of his depth, IMO).

The guy I think is great is Christy. He's exactly what voters want right now, though he said he's not interested, and I think unlike most he actually means it—because what people like is that he is a straight-shooter and will face uncomfortable facts.

IMO, the Rs will need to have a dark horse to have a good chance. Maybe Johnson (former 2 term NM governor) will run. I doubt he can secure the cash required to make a serious go, however. Too bad, he was great. He'll get skewered because he has said that some drugs should be decriminalized, or even legalized, though.

[Bilge_Rat]

The guy I think is great is Christy. He's exactly what voters want right now, though he said he's not interested, and I think unlike most he actually means it—because what people like is that he is a straight-shooter and will face uncomfortable facts.



He is on my short list as well. There is a very laudatory article on him in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/nyregion/12christie.html?ref=politics

He does seem very good. That said, his one negative is his weight:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/5.18.10ChristieStackByLuigiNovi6.jpg/748px-5.18.10ChristieStackByLuigiNovi6.jpg

rightly or wrongly, image is very important now in American politics and I don't know if the public is ready for a "hefty" president.

[Moeceefus]

I think Taft has him beat in the hefty department.

[tater]

Given how hefty Americans are becoming, that might not be a negative, lol.

I admire how he'll look the camera in the eye and say something unpopular but true. He doesn't have the air of polling to find out what he thinks, or of having some secret agenda that he has to hide.

He's off the table, though.

Of course Obama said flat out in 2004 that he would not run in 2008 because he'd not be qualified for the office at that point. He was certainly right about that.

[SteamWake]

I kind of expect Jindall to get into the mix as well.

[Bilge_Rat]

Here is the list of the currently speculated about Republican candidates:





Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Mississippi) Haley Barbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour) of Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-21)
Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Massachusetts) Scott Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown) of Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-22)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-23)
Former Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Florida) Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-25)
Businessman and radio talk show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_radio) host Herman Cain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain) of Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state))[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-27)
House Minority Whip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_whips_of_the_United_States_House_of_Represen tatives) Eric Cantor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor) of Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia)[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-28)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-29)
Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_New_Jersey) Chris Christie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie) of New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-30)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-31)
Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Indiana) Mitch Daniels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels) of Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) [33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-32)[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-33)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-34)
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves) Newt Gingrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich) of Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state))[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-35)[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-36)
Former Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Arkansas) Mike Huckabee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee) of Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas)[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-38)
Former Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_New_Mexico) Gary E. Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson) of New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico)[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-39)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-40)
Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Louisiana) Bobby Jindal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal) of Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-41)[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-42)
Former Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Alaska) and 2008 vice presidential candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008) Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin) of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-romney-palin-43)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-44)
Representative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_Texas) Ron Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) [46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-45)[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-46)
Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Minnesota) Tim Pawlenty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty) of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota)[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-48)
Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Texas) Rick Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry) of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-49)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-50)
General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_four-star_generals) David Petraeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus) of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York)[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-51)[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-52)
Representative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_from_Indiana ) Mike Pence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence) of Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-53)[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-54)
Former Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Massachusetts) Mitt Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney) of Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-56)
Former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_Florida_House_of_Representatives) Marco Rubio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-57)[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-58)
Former Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Pennsylvania) Rick Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum) of Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-59)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-60)
Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_South_Dakota) John Thune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thune) of South Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota)[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-61)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-62)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-62)


A lot of good names there, the question is who could beat Obama?

[Bilge_Rat]

the Palin guessing game...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39708.html

[August]

I wouldn't vote for Palin because I don't like quitters.

[SteamWake]

I wouldn't vote for Palin because I don't like quitters.

She dident 'quit' ... well she did but it was a stratigic withdrrawl.

You havent heard the last of her, furthermore she does not have ambitions to run for the presidency rather most of her actions will go un noticed but influential all the same.

[August]

She dident 'quit' ... well she did but it was a stratigic withdrrawl.

You havent heard the last of her, furthermore she does not have ambitions to run for the presidency rather most of her actions will go un noticed but influential all the same.

I'm fine with her working in the backround but as the point person she blew it when she quit. Were she to run the Dems would rake her over the coals for it.

[The Third Man]

As I recall, then Senator Hillary Clinton didn't drop out of the Democratic primary until late June-early July 2008. It wasn't until then that the Democrats had a clear leader. At this point in 2004 Mr. Obamal was little more than an Illinois State Senator .


I think it too early to think the GOP could or should have a clear leader.

[mookiemookie]

She dident 'quit' ... well she did but it was a stratigic withdrrawl.

Oh man, that's rich. :haha::har:

The people of Alaska voted her into the governor's office to do a job. She chose to not do that job. SHE QUIT.

[tater]

Oh man, that's rich. :haha::har:

The people of Alaska voted her into the governor's office to do a job. She chose to not do that job. SHE QUIT.

Obama quit his job when he started to run for President. Or should I say he collected his paycheck, but utterly failed to do the job he was paid for while he ran. McCain did the same (both candidates missed literally hundreds of votes, as did Senator Clinton). It's simple to prove, look at the number of votes cast, and missed days at work.

I'm no Palin fan, but if "quitting" is going to be your benchmark, you should at least broaden it to include staying in a job, but intentionally shirking all work associated with that job as "quitting."

I'd like to see a rule that would require an elected official who holds one office to resign if he runs for any other office the second he officially announces.

[Platapus]

I'd like to see a rule that would require an elected official who holds one office to resign if he runs for any other office the second he officially announces.


I would completely support that type of legislation. One of the duties of a congresscritter is to be in their office or chamber. When a Senator can "take off" almost 1/3 of his or her term to campaign for another position, that is wrong.

Unless the Senator is only campaigning at night and on the weekends, he or she is, in my opinion, abusing their current position.

Would I be allowed to interview for another job while charging my old company? I don't think so. So why should a congresscritter?

[tater]

Yeah, this is not a free speech issue, or anything else (I'm usually against "campaign finance" laws), it's a RULE for our EMPLOYEES.

They are supposed to work for US. They should have to be at the $#%@$%# office a certain % of the days of their term. That means sitting at their desk, able to answer the phone should one of their employers call them.

[August]

Obama quit his job when he started to run for President. Or should I say he collected his paycheck, but utterly failed to do the job he was paid for while he ran. McCain did the same (both candidates missed literally hundreds of votes, as did Senator Clinton). It's simple to prove, look at the number of votes cast, and missed days at work.

I'm no Palin fan, but if "quitting" is going to be your benchmark, you should at least broaden it to include staying in a job, but intentionally shirking all work associated with that job as "quitting."

I'd like to see a rule that would require an elected official who holds one office to resign if he runs for any other office the second he officially announces.

I would completely support that type of legislation. One of the duties of a congresscritter is to be in their office or chamber. When a Senator can "take off" almost 1/3 of his or her term to campaign for another position, that is wrong.

Unless the Senator is only campaigning at night and on the weekends, he or she is, in my opinion, abusing their current position.

Would I be allowed to interview for another job while charging my old company? I don't think so. So why should a congresscritter?

Agree 100+.

I guess this idea has bi-partisan support?

[tater]

Of course there is the PJ O'Rourke notion that all the congresscritters should get their paycheck up front, then be sent home so that they do NO work. That's sensible because the more laws they make, the less free we are :)

[Platapus]

Agree 100+.

I guess this idea has bi-partisan support?

Unfortunately, it won't have congressional support.

Anyone else see a problem with a system where congress is in charge of making the rules for congress??? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Of course there is the PJ O'Rourke notion that all the congresscritters should get their paycheck up front, then be sent home so that they do NO work. That's sensible because the more laws they make, the less free we are :)


We could pay each congress critter $1,000,000,000 per year tax free and still come out ahead if they stayed home. :har:

The motto of Congress should be "don't just do something, stand there!" :D

[tater]

Unfortunately, it won't have congressional support.

Anyone else see a problem with a system where congress is in charge of making the rules for congress??? :hmmm:

Actually, this is a State's rights thing.

States send their representatives to Congress. The idea should be floated to the lstate legislatures to set rules that require that for their State to certify anyone for the ballot, they must not be in the employment of the State, or representing the State in Congress unless it has ZERO impact on their work schedule. That means they are in DC at work, and make all the votes (or whatever % the State requires).

Failure to follow the rules would result in a fine equal to the pay for the entirety of all calendar years affected (so a 2008 run that started in 2007 would forfeit 2 years pay). In addition, they'd forfeit any possibility of being on the next ballot. So Obama, McCain, and Clinton would all have been disallowed on their home-state's next ballot. In the case of Obama, that would be bad, since his next ballot would be 2012, so he'd default IL.

Won't happen, but I can dream. Bottom line is that the States need to police their employees.

[August]

Unfortunately, it won't have congressional support.

Anyone else see a problem with a system where congress is in charge of making the rules for congress??? :hmmm:

Yeah like setting their own pay scales too.

But, even though it was struck down by the SC Congress still managed to pass a Line Item Veto bill so I have hope it could be done someday.

[Platapus]

I always thought it would be a good idea to make all congresscritters state employees. If the Senator from Ohio wants a payraise, he or she would have to go back to the Ohio legislation and answer the question "what have you done to deserve a payraise"

Since the primary duty of a congresscritter is to represent the interests of their respective states, they should be state employees. There would have to be a minimum number of rules to govern them while they are in DC, but for the most part, their butts belong to the state.

[August]

I always thought it would be a good idea to make all congresscritters state employees. If the Senator from Ohio wants a payraise, he or she would have to go back to the Ohio legislation and answer the question "what have you done to deserve a payraise"

Since the primary duty of a congresscritter is to represent the interests of their respective states, they should be state employees. There would have to be a minimum number of rules to govern them while they are in DC, but for the most part, their butts belong to the state.

I like that idea as well.