Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Americans show themselves far fussier about politics than they were in 2000. They are less willing to tolerate a mediocrity in 2012 than they were in 2000. People recognize how significant politics are. The economy now seems as much as ever a zero-sum game with political choices deciding who gets the gold and who gets the shaft. In good economic times, most politicians can ride the economic cycle and get away with it. This time they can't.

The economic Right could win in 2010 if it could show that sacrifices on behalf of shareholders and bureaucratic elites brought economic growth and security; the recent record of corporate behavior shows that the mandated sacrifices (which those elites can demand through means other than political decisions) create starker disparities of privilege and deprivation instead of investment in plant and equipment that enhances productivity and creates jobs. Even the tax cuts or the Dubya era better reward those who can export capital (and in turn jobs) profitably than they do start-up small businesses, let alone working people. The political Right is as much the Religious Right... and the Religious Right is clearly in decline outside of its core areas in the South.

America worked better politically when moderates were the norm even in the South. Think about this: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were governors of Southern states. Tennessee used to elect such senators as Al Gore and Jim Sasser. To be sure, the Right would love to have someone like the late Jesse Helms or the current Saxby Chambliss, a vulgarian on culture but a suck-up to corporate power, as political leaders everywhere in America. Such solves nothing except to make people comfortable about rottenness.

I keep waiting in vain for people to see that the current belt tightening isn't working. Obama is not a prophet true-believer and the country doesn't "get him" (and may never do so). If he is re-elected in 2012 we may see some movement as the goal of making him a one term president will have to change to something else.

Originally Posted by Weave

Rick Perry, barring a major scandal or screw up will be the nominee.

I am not sure the next President is even in the race yet.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

Here is why Perry MUST never be allowed to be President:

The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare

These crazies are FRIGHTENING. They are nothing less than a Christian version of the Taliban. Not only do they have no place in public discourse, they are a threat to the republic and MUST BE STOPPED.

I agree actually. One thing I want to note is that it's not only bad for politics, but it's also bad for religion or in this case Christianity. We saw it happen with the Roman Catholic church and in many Islamic nations. When a religious institution is in political power it not only bastardizes the politics, but the religion as well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The economic Right could win in 2010 if it could show that sacrifices on behalf of shareholders and bureaucratic elites brought economic growth and security; the recent record of corporate behavior shows that the mandated sacrifices (which those elites can demand through means other than political decisions) create starker disparities of privilege and deprivation instead of investment in plant and equipment that enhances productivity and creates jobs.

During the last High, it felt like corporate success "trickled down" to labor -- so it was easier to justify business-friendly economic policy and "sell" it to the masses. That was the "What's good for GM is good for America" approach -- strong, growing and prosperous business also meant more jobs, higher wages and better benefits in many cases.

The irony is that the more we pursued "trickle down" as economic policy, the less corporate profits trickled down to the rank and file. These days the more they make, the more they *take away* from its workers, so it seems.

I think some people are still stuck in the "rising tide lifts all boats" meme as if helping Big Business will mean also helping labor, which explains why so many folks of modest means are still supporters of "trickle down" politicians. But that train started pulling away from the station more than 30 years ago, and now it's basically left the station completely and is fading off into the horizon.

Originally Posted by pizal81

When a religious institution is in political power it not only bastardizes the politics, but the religion as well.

Agreed. While the "separation of church and state" is not technically in the Constitution and I dislike the erroneous use of that phrase to describe Constitutional law, I believe it is true that politics and religion don't mix -- not only to protect government from religious influence, but ALSO to protect religion from political influence.

Yea, I'm one of the those Christians who respect and actually understand what separation of church and state means. I can also imagine how it would be if, let's say, we get a president who doesn't respect my religion and is adamant about forcing his views on the country. IMO, if we have a President like Bachman, I don't believe it will be long until the country WANTS a president like that.

Originally Posted by Odin

Here is why Perry MUST never be allowed to be President:

The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare

These crazies are FRIGHTENING. They are nothing less than a Christian version of the Taliban...

-Ah. Your penchant for over-the-top whining about non-threats. When Christian Fundies start executing people for minor infractions of their book, let me know and I'll get excited.

Originally Posted by playwrite

.. and funny where those jobs were created -


...

-Ahem:

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

...in the last year the Texas public sector has shrunk by 26,000 jobs. In the last 12 months, Texas lost 31,300 federal employees, trimmed 3,800 state jobs, and increased local government jobs by 8,400 jobs...

...Playdude needs to find better charts...

...Texas is seeing high unemployment in a large part because they're growing so damn fast. The problem with this from a charts and graphs perspective is that it leaves worse states off the hook, making them look better than they actually are. Looking at unemployment alone, we would conclude that Wisconsin has a better economy than Texas. But Wisconsin is still 120K short of it's pre-recession numbers. The only reason they look better than Texas is because 32,000 people fled the state. During that time, 739,000 people fled into Texas. Anyone who takes that data and pretends that this is somehow bad news for Texas is simply not being honest...

...Texas median hourly wage is $15.14... almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they've seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low...

...if we look at the wages data since the beginning of the recession (click to enlarge, states are listed alphabetically)... Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.

As a side note, the only blue state that has faster growing wages is Hawaii...

Originally Posted by playwrite

.. .that's right, what's behind the Perry's TX miracle is his creating govt jobs paid that cause a siginicant state budget deficit that 97% of which was bailed out by Obama's stimulus package...

-Hogwash. All that money wasted, except in TX! Huh. Playwrong thinks it's a coincidence that all those jobs just happened to be created in the state which largely ignores progressive polices...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...May I suggest that the right thing for you to do is to move to the 'miracle' state of TX - that move would simultaneously increase the average IQ of both TX and TN!

-Huh:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...089503,00.html

...according to an Aug. 17 report by the group that administers the ACT college-admissions exam, Texas high school graduates only narrowly trail national averages for college readiness. True, the national averages aren't great, but Texas is right there with the pack. So why is Duncan dissing the Lone Star State? Its minority students outperform minority students in Chicago, albeit by smaller margins. And with a high school graduation rate of about 73%, Texas may be slightly below the national average, but it's doing a lot better than Chicago, which only graduates about 56% of its students...


If Playwrite wants to raise any state's IQ, I'd suggest starting with booting the Illegals.

Related, FWIW:

http://nationalpriorities.org/public...ruitment-2010/

Military Recruitment - Proportion of Test Score Categories I-IIIA and IV by State [accepted in FY10]:

TN: 64.8% I, II, IIIA; [35.2% IIIB]; 0.0% IV.

TX: 62.6% I, II, IIIA; [37.1% IIIB]; 0.3% IV.

Compared to:

All Recruits: 63.9% I, II, IIIA; [35.7% IIIB]; 0.4% IV.

US Recruits only: 64.5% I, II, IIIA; [35.3%]; 0.2% IV.

...as for partisan stuff, compared to Playdude's home state:

NY: 65.9% I, II, IIIA; [33.7% IIIB]; 0.4% IV...

...NY generally did better than TN or TX, although they did have to take sligtly more of the relative dumb-dumbs [IV].

As for the most reliably "blue" place in the country:

DC: 52.2% I, II, IIIA; [47.8% IIIB]; 0.0% IV...

...well, no relative dumb-dumbs, but a lot more in the below average category than TN, TX, or the national averages.

...the most reliably "red" place:

WY: 67.2% I, II, IIIA; [32.8% IIIB]; 0.0% IV.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rick Perry will win the votes of the people least fussy about intellectual integrity. Such is an easy concession on my part. Question: does anyone want someone like that as a leader?



In his first two years as President, President Obama has had a huge volume of legislative successes. Everything that he wanted? No. No President gets that. Does that mean that everyone likes it? You obviously don't, and neither did the rest of the ideological purists of the Right. But take a good look at this graph:

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshor...four-bears.gif

and contrast the blue line to the gray line. Those two lines coincided very well for about a year and a half, suggesting a reprise of the worst economic meltdown since the 1930s. If we should get a double-dip, then the Republican majority in the House owns it.



We have had an economic recovery -- one slower than what almost anyone wants, but probably the strongest that we could have in view of the circumstances. This economic meltdown has an obvious analogue to that of 1929-1932 in cause (a speculative boom that went bust) and in that both were at or near the starts of 4Ts. Economic downturns in a 4T aren't the garden-variety recessions (as in 1958, 1969, and 1987) that allow quick and complete recoveries. People gave to deal with the reality of a sharp, severe downturn followed by a slow recovery. Economic conditions in November 1936 were awful, but FDR still won a landslide. From early 1933 to 1936 America experienced a slow and steady recovery from the ominous to the awful.

There is no easy way out of this depression -- and we might as well call it that. The President that we now have can make fresh promises in the summer and autumn of 2012 whose success is contingent upon the Democrats holding the Senate and winning the House... and of course the re-election of the President. The Hard Right can offer nothing more than greater hardships with theological cloaking -- that God will somehow bless the suffering of the non-rich on behalf of the super-rich.

Anything can happen in the process that leads to the Republican nomination. It's easy enough to say that if Mitt Romney is such a trimmer that he contradicts himself with every speech, then Rick Perry is a lunatic. President Obama may have failed to convince Americans in 2010 that Congress matters just as much as does the Presidency, but he can make that message next year. What he must do he does.

We are heading to a double dip recession and Obama will get all the blame. His policies have clearly failed. Trying to pin it on the Repubs in Congress who have been blocked at every turn wont work. The election will be all about Obama and his failures, or success if things turn around in the next 15 mos which is still possible, although unlikely. Roosevelt won in 36 because things seemed better than in 1932. Unemployment was down from 25% to around 12%, Bank failures had slowed considerably etc. Unfortunately Roosevelts war on business was only gearing up leading to a further loss of business confidence in 37-38 that sent us into a double dip, similar to where we are today. This is brilliantly explained in Amity Schlaes book "The Common Man".

Another Repub could emerge but its getting late for a new entrant to the race for money raising reasons. This race is boiling down to Romney and Perry with Perry having the edge. Texas is booming, high tax states like California and Illinois are sinking like a stone. Illinois is a great example of what not to do in a recession. Pat Quinn and the Dummycrats raised taxes to balance the budget and jobs are bleeding out of Illinois to lower tax states like Indiana.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

During the last High, it felt like corporate success "trickled down" to labor -- so it was easier to justify business-friendly economic policy and "sell" it to the masses. That was the "What's good for GM is good for America" approach -- strong, growing and prosperous business also meant more jobs, higher wages and better benefits in many cases.

The irony is that the more we pursued "trickle down" as economic policy, the less corporate profits trickled down to the rank and file. These days the more they make, the more they *take away* from its workers, so it seems.

I think some people are still stuck in the "rising tide lifts all boats" meme as if helping Big Business will mean also helping labor, which explains why so many folks of modest means are still supporters of "trickle down" politicians. But that train started pulling away from the station more than 30 years ago, and now it's basically left the station completely and is fading off into the horizon.

That's 1T verses 3T right there. In the first turning everyone knows that the best way to get things done is together. In a 3T people believe the best way to get things done is to rip off the next guy.

Originally Posted by Weave

...Texas is booming, high tax states like California and Illinois are sinking like a stone. Illinois is a great example of what not to do in a recession. Pat Quinn and the Dummycrats raised taxes to balance the budget and jobs are bleeding out of Illinois to lower tax states like Indiana.

-Your lucky day:

http://ptest.investors.com/NewsAndAn...rhage-Jobs.htm

As another manufacturer leaves, Illinois leads the nation in job loss in July. The free fall began with a tax hike. When will liberals learn when you tax something, you get less of it? ...In Illinois, the experiment of taxing your way back to prosperity has failed miserably...

...As the Illinois Policy Institute notes, the state lost more jobs in July than any other state in the nation, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. After losing 7,200 nonfarm payroll jobs in June, Illinois lost 24,900 more in July. The report also says Illinois' unemployment rate climbed for the third-straight month and now tops the national average at 9.5%...

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I keep waiting in vain for people to see that the current belt tightening isn't working. Obama is not a prophet true-believer and the country doesn't "get him" (and may never do so). If he is re-elected in 2012 we may see some movement as the goal of making him a one term president will have to change to something else.

The current belt-tightening won't work; it never can work. If President Obama is re-elected in 2012 and gets a House majority of Democrats while holding onto the Senate, then the President can easily abandon the belt-tightening because he has less commitment to it than does any Republican who sees austerity as the only solution. "If it takes forty years it will still work" might be a firm belief among the more populist figures of the Right, and the corporate elites don't give a d@mn about their cattle anyway. Austerity means that labor discipline can be more severe and that wages can go even lower while taxes get shifted from the rich to the non-rich.

Corporate America in 1932 was still committed to the 3T ideology of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover era long after FDR was elected. But eventually it had to deal with the reality of political change.

In July 2008, Obama accused Bush of being "unpatriotic" for running up 4 trillion in debt over 8 years. Obama has now run up the same amount in 2.5 years....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...04-503544.html

Originally Posted by Weave

We are heading to a double dip recession and Obama will get all the blame. His policies have clearly failed. Trying to pin it on the Repubs in Congress who have been blocked at every turn wont work. The election will be all about Obama and his failures, or success if things turn around in the next 15 mos which is still possible, although unlikely. .

But wasn't Clinton in a similar situation, in reference to being blocked by congress and not able to accomplish much?

Originally Posted by millennialX

But wasn't Clinton in a similar situation, in reference to being blocked by congress and not able to accomplish much?

-Not in the first half of his term. Particularly Obama, who had the House, and (briefly) a filibuster proof Senate.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Not in the first half of his term. Particularly Obama, who had the House, and (briefly) a filibuster proof Senate.

True. But I'm talking about as they went into his re election campaign.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Not in the first half of his term. Particularly Obama, who had the House, and (briefly) a filibuster proof Senate.

I am not sure that there is such a thing as a "filibuster proof" Senate anymore. There are quite a few conservative Democrats that aren't a sure thing on every issue. The only way to keep getting blocked at each turn is to actually make them filibuster, but our Senators are too lazy to actually sit there while some blowhard recites the Pledge of Allegiance (with "under God" of course) over and over. These virtual filibusters make it very difficult to pass legislation and I expect it to be a casualty of the 4T ...

Originally Posted by Aramea

I am not sure that there is such a thing as a "filibuster proof" Senate anymore. There are quite a few conservative Democrats that aren't a sure thing on every issue...

-DINOs pretty much balance out the RINOs.

Originally Posted by millennialX

True. But I'm talking about as they went into his re election campaign.

-If who runs Congress is an election issue, then you have to count halves of his term.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

DINOs pretty much balance out the RINOs.

How many RINOs are left in the Senate? The only ones that come to mind are the two ladies from Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). Those that are moderate are terrified of being primaried.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

How many DINOs are left in the Senate? The only ones that come to mind are the two ladies from Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). Those that are moderate are terrified of being primaried.

Wouldn't these two be RINOS and not DINOs? Some might consider Lugar and Scott Brown Rinos. Of course Lugar is one of the old guard, and Brown is from Massachussettes.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I am not sure that there is such a thing as a "filibuster proof" Senate anymore. There are quite a few conservative Democrats that aren't a sure thing on every issue. The only way to keep getting blocked at each turn is to actually make them filibuster, but our Senators are too lazy to actually sit there while some blowhard recites the Pledge of Allegiance (with "under God" of course) over and over. These virtual filibusters make it very difficult to pass legislation and I expect it to be a casualty of the 4T ...

I won't be surprised if the filibuster gets deep sixed as we get deeper into the 4T.
The current so called filibuster is too much like the Star trek episode A taste of Armageddon where war has become so "clean" that there is no reason not to continue the war forever. At a minimum it will be reinterpreted as demanding an actual filibuster. It would be entertaining to see Senators reading the phone book or the Bible in their thousand dollar suits all the while those in the know realize that they have adult diapers on under those suits to enable them to hold the floor and prevent a cloture vote.
But alas, even though real filibusters usually only lasted a day or so as the 4T heats up there any filibuster may be seen as a dangerous waste of time.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Wouldn't these two be RINOS and not DINOs? Some might consider Lugar and Scott Brown Rinos. Of course Lugar is one of the old guard, and Brown is from Massachussettes.

Yes, I meant RINOs. You have a point about Scott Brown. Is Lugar retiring soon?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, I meant RINOs. You have a point about Scott Brown. Is Lugar retiring soon?

1) You can throw in Lamar Alexander, and McCain and Graham on anything were they get to pander to La Raza and certain Nanny State issues.

2) Lugar comes up for re-election in 2012. He plans to run, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Yes, I meant RINOs. You have a point about Scott Brown. Is Lugar retiring soon?

No, Lugar is still planning to run in 2012. But there is a bit of noise to primary him as there is with Orrin Hatch, who isn't exactly known for being a RINO.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) You can throw in Lamar Alexander, and McCain and Graham on anything were they get to pander to La Raza and certain Nanny State issues.

2) Lugar comes up for re-election in 2012. He plans to run, as far as I know.

Yep, I forgot about Lindsey Graham. He's got a number of detractors in the tea party too.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Yep, I forgot about Lindsey Graham. He's got a number of detractors in the tea party too.

-And Kirk.

K.B. Hutchinson is sort of in the Alexander/Lugar mold, but she retires.

And then there's Murkowski, the Pork Queen.