Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unfortunately, as the 2010 election may show, money is everything in American politics unless the opponent is an absolute nutcase. May show -- because the GOP freshmen in the House aren't doing so well in keeping their credibility. The perfect candidate for 2010 was a 100% sell-out to Corporate America. When they have drained the US of all assets, left behind a moonscape, poisoned the atmosphere, bankrupted every state and local government, saddled the rest of us with unpayable private and public debt, sold off all public assets, and left behind a ravaged society in which violent revolution is inevitable, then they will take off for places with more socialistic policies that remain livable -- and leave America to the patsies whose heads will roll in a replay of 1789 in France.

Citizens United may be the worst USSC ruling ever. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, disgusting as they were, didn't hurt the majority of people. Citizen's United doesn't discriminate in its harm. One of the first effects is to debase political life by connecting electability to being able to kiss up to the vilest of interests. But as shown elsewhere, debasement of political life begins the debasement of everything else.

The only problem with your assertion is that the Democrats had, and spent, more money in 2010 than the Republicans did. Well, not the only problem, but the most glaringly obvious one.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The only problem with your assertion is that the Democrats had, and spent, more money in 2010 than the Republicans did. Well, not the only problem, but the most glaringly obvious one.

What kind of person thinks a corporation deserves more rights than a woman? A conservative.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

What kind of person thinks a corporation deserves more rights than a woman? A conservative.

Not true. I don't believe corporations have the right to kill babies either.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

What kind of person thinks a corporation deserves more rights than a woman? A conservative.

I am an independent conservative and think that corporations should not have more rights than individuals. I also have problem with the ruling that corporations are treated as 'persons'.

Well, looks like there is another name in the mix for 2012:


The Donald Steals the Show

Donald Trump was the surprise speaker at CPAC in Washington Thursday, and the billionaire real estate developer and entrepreneur wasted no time leaving an impression. The reality TV host told the crowd he was considering a run for the GOP 2012 presidential nomination and would decide by June.
"The U.S. is becoming the laughingstock of the world," said Trump. "They view our leaders as weak and ineffective."
Trump also went specifically after President Obama, "Our current president came out of nowhere... [He has] no track record... nothing to criticize."
'The Donald,' as he is called, was a last minute add to the schedule and the crowd gave him a rousing reception. "Considering the shape the U.S. is in right now, we need a competitive person, a highly competent person, or we're going to have very serious problems, very soon."
But the highlight of Trump's speech may have been when he took on the large and loud group of Ron Paul supporters in the hall. "By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected. I'm sorry folks," Trump said as Paul supporters jeered. "I like Ron Paul... but he has zero chance of getting elected."
Trump also made a point of getting on the record with some of his conservative political positions. "I'm pro-life and I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it."
Trump was also a huge attraction for the media and was constantly trailed by a cabal of reporters and cameras from the moment he walked in the door.

I'm surprised that Trump is pro-life, although it could always be just a calculated position. He definitely sounds like he's running.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Well, looks like there is another name in the mix for 2012:


The Donald Steals the Show

I'm surprised that Trump is pro-life, although it could always be just a calculated position. He definitely sounds like he's running.

We will never elect the world's worst comb-over. Ron Paul has a better chance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We will never elect the world's worst comb-over. Ron Paul has a better chance.

For quite some time, I believed we would never elect someone named Barack Hussein Obama 7 years after 9/11. All bets are off.

Originally Posted by radind

I am an independent conservative and think that corporations should not have more rights than individuals. I also have problem with the ruling that corporations are treated as 'persons'.

History is against you, conservatives have been giving corporations personhood and more rights to them for a long time now.

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

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not true. I don't believe corporations have the right to kill babies either.

They just send them to war, right?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm surprised that Trump is pro-life, although it could always be just a calculated position. He definitely sounds like he's running.

How boring and ridiculous. What would you expect of a billionaire real estate tycoon except to look after the interests of the upper class? Nothing new there, except a plutocrat would be directly in charge instead of pulling the strings. Of course, he also is a ridiculous personality. Would people vote for a ridiculous personality? Well, they did at least once...

What does it say about Americans that Trump is even taken at all seriously? Maybe an America with too many people in it who think like JPT.

Originally Posted by 85turtle

History is against you, conservatives have been giving corporations personhood and more rights to them for a long time now.

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

You are correct about history. I just wanted to note that ypur comment did not apply to all conservatives.

Originally Posted by radind

You are correct about history. I just wanted to note that your comment did not apply to all conservatives.

And I don't think JPT's comments should apply to all Boomers. This too is an aspect of human thinking. When resources get short, humans start to think in terms of 'Us' and 'Them'. 'They' will be demonized. All problems will be blamed on 'Them.' This makes it easier for individuals to not look in the mirror and see if they themselves are in any way at fault or in any way have to change.

And it isn't just 85turtle or JPT, anyone who buys into a partisan group think ought to assume that they have the problem. Again, this forum illustrates the degree that one can cling to cultural values and not listen to what other intelligent (if partisan) people say.

In the United States, the major divide is Red and Blue. In other parts of the world it might manifest as ethnic or religious strife. Not so long ago the capitalists and communists had another strong disagreement on values that seemed important enough to nuke the world.

Humans are social animals, pack hunters. They form groups, select leaders, defend territories, make rules, enforce rules, and in many ways share and impose values and world views on those in their territory. Not too long ago and far too commonly expanding one's territory by force to include the entire world seemed the right thing to do.

Everybody has stereotyped ideas about how their political opposition thinks. It matters little if the opposition is liberal, conservative, libertarian, Muslim, Chinese or Martian. The opposition's viewpoint will be simplified and demonized. Opposition arguments are reduced to inaccurate strawman positions. Posters on this forum often attack said inaccurate strawmen rather than addressing what their opposition is actually proposing or responding to what they are talking about. It is very easy to see when somebody else is doing this to you, less easy to see when you are doing it to someone else.

Not that I'm saying you are particularly bad at it. I'm just trying to state what seems to me to be obvious, why the conversations here go nowhere. You comment might properly be expanded to cover all partisan, ethnic, religious or other groups.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

And I don't think JPT's comments should apply to all Boomers. This too is an aspect of human thinking. When resources get short, humans start to think in terms of 'Us' and 'Them'. 'They' will be demonized. All problems will be blamed on 'Them.' This makes it easier for individuals to not look in the mirror and see if they themselves are in any way at fault or in any way have to change.

And it isn't just 85turtle or JPT, anyone who buys into a partisan group think ought to assume that they have the problem. Again, this forum illustrates the degree that one can cling to cultural values and not listen to what other intelligent (if partisan) people say.

In the United States, the major divide is Red and Blue. In other parts of the world it might manifest as ethnic or religious strife. Not so long ago the capitalists and communists had another strong disagreement on values that seemed important enough to nuke the world.

Humans are social animals, pack hunters. They form groups, select leaders, defend territories, make rules, enforce rules, and in many ways share and impose values and world views on those in their territory. Not too long ago and far too commonly expanding one's territory by force to include the entire world seemed the right thing to do.

Everybody has stereotyped ideas about how their political opposition thinks. It matters little if the opposition is liberal, conservative, libertarian, Muslim, Chinese or Martian. The opposition's viewpoint will be simplified and demonized. Opposition arguments are reduced to inaccurate strawman positions. Posters on this forum often attack said inaccurate strawmen rather than addressing what their opposition is actually proposing or responding to what they are talking about. It is very easy to see when somebody else is doing this to you, less easy to see when you are doing it to someone else.

Not that I'm saying you are particularly bad at it. I'm just trying to state what seems to me to be obvious, why the conversations here go nowhere. You comment might properly be expanded to cover all partisan, ethnic, religious or other groups.

Great comments and i agree that the concept should be expanded to all groups. I realize that all of tend to use 'shorthand', but hope that we could all work to promote constructive, civil dialog.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The only problem with your assertion is that the Democrats had, and spent, more money in 2010 than the Republicans did. Well, not the only problem, but the most glaringly obvious one.

That was the difference between the Democratic Party and the official (Michael Steele) Republican party. The real GOP was the lavishly-funded front groups like Crossroads GPS (Karl Rogue), Freedom Works (Dick Armey), the National Chamber of Commerce, the Koch political syndicate, and the very shadowy Club for Growth. Don't forget the ideologues of the John Birch Society who, long considered disreputable in American life, has become the mainstream of the American Right. Early in 2010 many Democrats believed that the incompetence of the GOP under Steele would make things easy. Then we got the sucker punch. Or, perhaps, we found a fresh and more expert boxer substituting for the one that we first fought.

If such is the future of American politics, then I am glad that I have no children to inherit the suffering that an ideology that many of us thought died in February 1917 in Russia imposes here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That was the difference between the Democratic Party and the official (Michael Steele) Republican party. The real GOP was the lavishly-funded front groups like Crossroads GPS (Karl Rogue), Freedom Works (Dick Armey), the National Chamber of Commerce, the Koch political syndicate, and the very shadowy Club for Growth. Don't forget the ideologues of the John Birch Society who, long considered disreputable in American life, has become the mainstream of the American Right. Early in 2010 many Democrats believed that the incompetence of the GOP under Steele would make things easy. Then we got the sucker punch. Or, perhaps, we found a fresh and more expert boxer substituting for the one that we first fought.

If such is the future of American politics, then I am glad that I have no children to inherit the suffering that an ideology that many of us thought died in February 1917 in Russia imposes here.

JPTs assertion is still true. The labor unions, particularly the public sector unions, donate lavishly to the democrats.

Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.

Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.

Here.

Sometimes it feels like I spend half my time on this forum providing facts to folks on the left who claim to be fact based. Look it up people!

John Birch society in the mainstream? Russia in 1917? You are just making stuff up.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

JPTs assertion is still true. The labor unions, particularly the public sector unions, donate lavishly to the democrats.

In this case, lavish is a matter of proportion. By no stretch of the imagination can labor unions compete with business on spending. For one thing, they simply aren't that large anymore. Business has the money to create huge campaign war chests, and does.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

Sometimes it feels like I spend half my time on this forum providing facts to folks on the left who claim to be fact based. Look it up people!

As far as I can tell, you haven't been all that burdened. PW buries us all in graphs and data sets. So does Bob Butler. I've even posted a few myself. Mainly, you post links ... some of which tend to argue against the point you're making at the time.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

John Birch society in the mainstream? Russia in 1917? You are just making stuff up.

James50

The JBS is a direct reference to the Koch brothers. Their father underwrote Welch in the '50s, and the sons are no less hyper conservative than their father. I think the 1917 comment was hyperbole. Note: I'm not the source of either.

Originally Posted by James50

JPTs assertion is still true. The labor unions, particularly the public sector unions, donate lavishly to the democrats.

Here.

Sometimes it feels like I spend half my time on this forum providing facts to folks on the left who claim to be fact based. Look it up people!

John Birch society in the mainstream? Russia in 1917? You are just making stuff up.

James50

1. The front groups deluged Democrats with negative ads; they far out-spent the official GOP.

2. The John Birch Society used to be recognized as a fringe organization among Democrats and Republicans alike. Now it is very much in tune with the GOP, or at least the Tea Party movement because those have drifted into the range of Birch ideology.

3. Add selfishness and cruelty to a contempt for liberal ideals among elites and an extensive promotion of superstition and bigotry as an anodyne for economic distress of the masses and you have the GOP in 2011 or the Romanov court in 1911.

If you are a conservative, then you need to have an economic and political order worthy of preservation. Otto Von Bismarck, no liberal, established the first system of social security so that working people would have less cause to turn to extreme socialists in a time of military failure or economic meltdown. Contrast Germany in 1918 to Russia in 1917.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If you are a conservative, then you need to have an economic and political order worthy of preservation. Otto Von Bismarck, no liberal, established the first system of social security so that working people would have less cause to turn to extreme socialists in a time of military failure or economic meltdown. Contrast Germany in 1918 to Russia in 1917.

This is something that I think about sometimes as well. Even if one strongly opposes "socialism" and believes the hyperbole that even minor increases in social spending or a modest amount of regulation of capitalism is "socialist," it's short-sighted to push for a system that continues to move much of the middle class closer to the lower class.

When you have a "critical mass" of economically disenfranchised people, when most people are feeling economic misery even as they see a few elites living it up more than ever, you will see increasing calls to completely dismantle the system, not merely tinker around the edges. Hopefully that will only manifest itself at the ballot box, but history is also unfortunately filled with more violent forms of economic and political change.

I don't think it will be too many more years that those who want to continue the increasing bifurcation of the economic classes will be able to convince the people falling behind that they are worth supporting. I just hope the masses use the ballot box to accomplish it before they feel a need to resort to the torches and pitchforks.

The bottom line is that a certain amount of social welfare and a large, stable middle class are very important in preserving the order and the status quo. And it would behoove these elites to allow a little so-called "socialism" and get 90% of what they want in a very stable society than insist on 100% and risk having the masses turn on them.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1.

Otto Von Bismarck, no liberal, established the first system of social security so that working people would have less cause to turn to extreme socialists in a time of military failure or economic meltdown. Contrast Germany in 1918 to Russia in 1917.

Bismarck was no dummy. Isn't this similar to FDR implementing programs because of the fear of socialism? In the 30s that was much more of a realistic threat given the relatively recent Russian Revolution. Now? Who knows? We in the US will probably limp along until it hits critical mass for more people. I think it will take a few more years.

The added danger here is the de-stigmatization of treason - or at least, disloyalty - that occurred during the Boom Awakening.

What happens if the economically (and otherwise) disenfranchised comes to agree with Phil Ochs and concludes that "even treason might be worth a try"?

And like a good neighbor, the Islamists are there.

This article contains a nice graphic summary of Red vs. Blue states post 2010 elections. Partial extract follows:

"The United States, both nationally and in every state, has moved in a more Republican direction during the last two years. Though the losses are not welcome news for the Democratic Party, the decline since 2008 is from a high point in the party's support, the highest in at least two decades. Thus, while the losses have clearly hurt the party's positioning compared with what it was as President Barack Obama was taking office, its strength is generally back to where it was in the mid-2000s, before a series of events including the Iraq war, high gas prices, and the recession eroded public confidence in George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

At the same time, the Democratic losses have not led to major gains in Republican affiliation. Rather, Gallup finds greater increases in the number of competitive states than in solid or leaning Republican states."

Mike Huckabee, as he mulls over whether to run for President again in 2012, believes that Obama will be hard to beat, according to a Washington Post article (you have to go to the third page to find my citation).

And then there is the question of whether the Republican nomination will really be such a prize in 2012.

President Obama "is going to be much tougher to beat than people in our party think," Huckabee said. "He's going to have a clear ride through to the Democratic nomination, because no one is going to oppose him or challenge him. He's going to start out with a billion dollars, no opponent, so he can save his money to the last four months. He's got a huge social network and he has the power of the incumbency. People underestimate how sweet it is flying on Air Force One with all the trappings of the presidency."

The Republicans, meanwhile, "could in fact end up with a demolition derby," he added. "Whoever emerges will come out bloody, bruised and broke."

Obama could be crippled by such imponderables as high unemployment or a crisis overseas, Huckabee said. "Is he beatable? Yes. Is it as easy as some of the Republicans like to chirp? Absolutely not. And that's something I have to consider."

$100 per barrel of oil does not bode well for the Obama Regime. It may sink the already foundering recovery and is already causing inflation. We may begin to see the same as we saw in the 1970's: Stagflation.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41714336

This article from today's Government Executive discusses Obama's chances at re-election. Of course, a lot can happen with the election over 1 1/2 years out.

Tim Pawlenty's announcement that he is setting up a 2012 presidential campaign exploratory committee makes the former Minnesota governor the first major GOP contender to take the big step, although others will undoubtedly follow over the next several months.

Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich appear virtually certain to run and will signal as much before too long, although Romney is under the least pressure to move fast. Having run a Rolls Royce, free-spending campaign last time, he seems less enthused about investing as much personal money in the race and experiencing the kind of cash burn rate that he did four years ago.

Mitch Daniels seems less certain, but he is still apparently considering a bid. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee look a little less likely; Jon Huntsman, now in the process of resigning his post as U.S. ambassador to China, seems more and more likely to run, although the prospect of GOP primary voters seriously considering someone from the Obama administration strains credulity.

But for all the pondering and posturing, a couple of things seem very clear. First, the truism that the Republican Party is hierarchical, that Republicans inevitably nominate whomever's turn it is, does not appear to be the case this time. The Gallup Organization's Lydia Saad pointed out in a March 7 report that "since 1952, Republican nomination races have always featured a clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign, and, in almost all cases, that front-runner ultimately won the nomination." On March 5, National Journal published a great graphic of the Gallup data, on p. 32, showing as much. For that matter, 2012 doesn't even resemble the Democratic situation in 2008, when Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama formed a top tier and others were trying to break through. At this stage, we don't even have that much clarity. This is a pretty wide-open race.

But a second impression comes through in conversations with GOP strategists, donors, and activists. The bullishness that pervaded the Republican Party's efforts to capture a majority in the House and the sense of Democratic vulnerability that existed a year ago is not so obvious today. Perhaps it's the sobering fact that Republicans now have at least partial governing responsibility and that governing is hard; or that since the November votes were counted, President Obama has charted a more moderate and pragmatic course, one that seems more consistent with his winning reelection.

Or maybe it's that the unemployment rate has declined three months in a row by a total of nine-tenths of a percent.

All of this seems to mean that the president no longer looks like a political basket case. When asked to estimate Obama's reelection chances, political pros cite figures in the range of 60 percent to 70 percent, although with plenty of caveats about unforeseen events.

It certainly isn't that despondency reigns in the GOP; Republicans have many reasons to feel confident that they will keep the House next year and that their chances of capturing the Senate look very promising. But even those who felt that the Obama White House was showing suicidal tendencies during its first two years now find its new course potentially far more successful.

For 12 of the last 13 weeks of Gallup polling, Obama's job-approval rating has been at least 47 percent or 48 percent. For two weeks it was at 50 percent, a far cry from the period between July 4 and December 20 when his approval rating never reached as high as 47 percent. Historically, presidents with a job-approval rating above the 47-48 percent level going into Election Day have won; those with job-approval ratings below that point have lost. It's important to note that job-approval ratings don't become effective predictors until about a year before the election; so for the next seven or eight months, these numbers are purely academic, but the trend for him looks better today than it did a few months ago.

The lack of ebullience among Republicans for their 2012 presidential prospects is probably a combination of Obama looking less vulnerable than before and the unprecedented lack of clarity in their own field. Although GOP enthusiasm will likely build once the campaign begins in earnest, it is remarkable that it's taking so long, given Obama's polarizing effect among conservatives and Republicans.

With the election still more than 19 months away, there undoubtedly will be an ebb and flow, a series of peaks and valleys of optimism and pessimism. Economic and foreign-policy events will help drive the narrative of just how vulnerable Obama really is, and will be, in November 2012.
But things really have changed since last year.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This article from today's Government Executive discusses Obama's chances at re-election. Of course, a lot can happen with the election over 1 1/2 years out.

Here is the latest Quinipiac Poll. Obama has a 42% approval and 50% beleive he doesnt deserve re-election.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1575