Originally Posted by Deb C

One would think that from many interviews with Evangelical women, they will be the ones choosing the GOP's presidential candidate. At least it appears that way. After all, they do carry a flag and a cross.

Only a Confessed Sinner Can Be Redeemed



http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153...r_herman_cain/

Edit: I'm all for forgiveness but not a fan of fundamentalism.

Herman Cain Affair Allegations Prompt Republicans To Call For His Exit

Cain is irrelevant, and the quicker he gets out of the race the better it will be," said Ed Rollins, a longtime Republican strategist. "My fear is that he marches to the beat of his own drum and he may try to drag it on and deny and deny and deny. And my sense is that will likely be the pattern here. But there is no way he can be the nominee of our party. The quicker he gets out, the better for him and for us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...cid=edlinkusao

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The right-wing Republican Party can't sit still with Romney. It has to flirt with one right-wing crazyman after another. Bachman, Perry, Cain; now Gingrich.

This ad about Romney is devastating not only to him but to the GOP's 2012 cause -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=K9njHHyRI7g#!

Most analysts are concluding that the DNC believes Romney is the eventual GOP candidate and that they are only trying to soften him up for the general election.

I don't think so.

The DNC is trying to take him out in the primaries (Plan A) or, if he is the nominee, have the Far Right of the GOP somewhere between demoralized, not sending cash, staying home, or running a 3rd party candidate (Plan B)

Note in the video, outside of the late-night comedians, the near exclusive use of well-know GOP talking heads to tear into Romney - Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, etc. - that is not aimed at Independents in the General; that is aimed at value-oriented Right wingers that already have a big problem with Romney.

I think this was aimed primarily at getting one of the 'not-Mitt candidates' that would be an easy run for Obama. However, they didn't realize how bad Perry was (I'm pretty sure they knew Cain, Bachman, Paul and Santorum were not going to happen). There is still some hope that Gingrich can pull it off and the DNC would be ecstatic (there's little doubt Newt would self-implode again once the General is underway; if not, Bill Clinton would probably take him out with a single 60 Mintues interview on what really went on back in the ‘90s). There is a risk that their stratey might get them Huntsman, but it’s just too early for him - he's the "better Romney" in 2016 – I think for the DNC, it’s an acceptable risk.

So what this is really about is demoralizing the wingers getting them to not send cash and possible stay home next November. A third party, however, is a stretch for there's no one they can rally around. Gingrich won't go against the GOP, besides he’s got his own problems with the wingers. Ron Paul might but he never polls well; as a 3rd candidate, he could take away enough votes in some swing states, however, to make Obama's run against Romney a cake walk.

It is amazing to compare the "first-stringer" GOP field in 2008 (when a reincarnated Ron Ray-gun wouldn't of had a chance) to this 2012 "back bencher" field in a year that was their's to win. The coming lost could really get underway that inevitable split between the wingers and the banking elites in the GOP; perhaps some sort of crescendo soon after the elections. Add in the demographics, and within a decade, they could go to being a regional party. Got my fingers crossed for that.

Then the banking elites might try to peel off a segment of the establishment type Dems to form a ‘business party’ to oppose those left in the Dem party as labor. That, unfortunately, could lead to the wingers regional party, being the deciding swing vote in elections. Interesting times to come.

Cain is finished.
After all the rise of Gingrich has little to do with Newt's continued advocacy of position points that got no attention a month ago.

Simply put, Herman Cain has only his reputation to run on. He's never held public office or otherwise been subjected to public scrutiny. All voters have to go on it Cain's word that he will be responsible with power and all that comes with it.
Yet what little bits of his past we see becoming public does not paint a becoming portrait.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Cain is finished.

It seems like he, or at least his staff, might know it.

Just when I thought my voting for Obama was a bit easier. UGH!

“The sad reality here is that the president appointed strong leaders to the environmental, health, and safety agencies, but has undermined them over and over by allowing OIRA to substitute its judgment for the expertise of the agencies,” Steinzor said in a statement.

Study shows more regulations changed under Obama than under President Bush

Administration involvement in the work of regulators has increased since President Obama took office, according to a study from a liberal think tank.

The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) report released Monday claims Obama officials have changed more regulations than the administration of George W. Bush.

While the Bush administration altered 64 percent of regulations it reviewed, the Obama administration has changed 76 percent, the study found.

“President Obama promised to free government from the grip of special interests, but instead he’s opened the White House doors wide to industry lobbyists seeking to block needed health and safety protections, further politicizing the regulatory process” said report co-author and CPR President Rena Steinzor in a statement.

The study accuses the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of overstepping its boundaries by needlessly stalling and altering regulations. The CPR report claims OIRA is also disproportionately focused on the regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency.

OIRA spokeswoman Meg Reilly declined to comment on the report but defended the agency’s work in an email to The Hill.

“The review process is facilitated by [the Office of Management and Budget], but there are many agencies involved and any improvements made to rules are the reflection of rigorous interagency analysis and discussion. The result is more effective, cost-justified, science-based rules,” she wrote.

“I don’t think anyone believes that, at a time when we need to support economic recovery and job creation with smarter rulemaking, we should weaken regulatory analysis."

Steinzor said the study shows the Obama administration is running roughshod over federal regulators.

More: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...han-under-bush

I wonder if what is happening to Cain could backfire on Gingrich, given that Gingrich has done the same sorts of things in the past. Will the Christian right wing really settle for Gingrich? Is it really enough that he has supposedly "confessed" his past errors?

I hope he veto's this Bill. Now you understand why I could never vote for that old fcuk, Senator McCain.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rist-custody-/

I wouldn't turn in my worst enemy if any American lost his/ her ability to protest. You hear this, Eric the Green, Pb and Playwright.

Senator Rand Paul speaking on admending this Law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=anjVgWNzQnk#!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder if what is happening to Cain could backfire on Gingrich, given that Gingrich has done the same sorts of things in the past. Will the Christian right wing really settle for Gingrich? Is it really enough that he has supposedly "confessed" his past errors?

Doubt it...Time for Touchdown Jesus to return.

I plan on writing in and vote for Gov. Gary Johnson if he leaves the GOP party.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

I hope he veto's this Bill. Now you understand why I could never vote for that old fcuk, Senator McCain.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rist-custody-/

I wouldn't turn in my worst enemy if any American lost his/ her ability to protest. You hear this, Eric the Green, Pb and Playwright.

Senator Rand Paul speaking on admending this Law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=anjVgWNzQnk#!

I concur.

This country does not need dictatorial powers to suppress outright terrorism. All terrorists are criminals, and out heritage of freedom has forced law enforcement to become more clever and efficient in investigating overt crime. Following a money trail or a paper trail is far more reliable than beating out a confession.

It's amazing that I can agree with Rand Paul on something. If we abandon the traditional norms of due process than we have the sort of political system in which things get worse and make dissidence a necessity... and a crime. We could easily become a plutocratic version of the unlamented Soviet Union complete with torture chambers, 'labor' camps in insalubrious places with starvation for those who fail to meet impossible quotas, 'psychiatric' hospitals that treat dissent as if it were schizophrenia, controlled media and stooge unions, and of course an aggressive foreign policy. Woe would it be for anyone who obeys his conscience instead of the Party boss.

Maybe instead of a bullet to the back of the head it would be a lobotomy for a dissident. I fail to notice the improvement.

The President needs to veto this legislation. It is enough (not that I disagree on this) that the President has the blood of Osama bin Laden on his hands. He has far exceeded expectations in the struggle against terrorism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I concur.

This country does not need dictatorial powers to suppress outright terrorism. All terrorists are criminals, and out heritage of freedom has forced law enforcement to become more clever and efficient in investigating overt crime. Following a money trail or a paper trail is far more reliable than beating out a confession.

It's amazing that I can agree with Rand Paul on something. If we abandon the traditional norms of due process than we have the sort of political system in which things get worse and make dissidence a necessity... and a crime. We could easily become a plutocratic version of the unlamented Soviet Union complete with torture chambers, 'labor' camps in insalubrious places with starvation for those who fail to meet impossible quotas, 'psychiatric' hospitals that treat dissent as if it were schizophrenia, controlled media and stooge unions, and of course an aggressive foreign policy. Woe would it be for anyone who obeys his conscience instead of the Party boss.

Maybe instead of a bullet to the back of the head it would be a lobotomy for a dissident. I fail to notice the improvement.

The President needs to veto this legislation. It is enough (not that I disagree on this) that the President has the blood of Osama bin Laden on his hands. He has far exceeded expectations in the struggle against terrorism.

I agree completely and our Senators need to hear from us now.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Doubt it...Time for Touchdown Jesus to return.

I plan on writing in and vote for Gov. Gary Johnson if he leaves the GOP party.

If the GOP ever pays him any attention, he could be a formidable candidate (according to my astrological analysis)

He won't get that attention though, at least in the next few months. An independent run? Maybe....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the GOP ever pays him any attention, he could be a formidable candidate (according to my astrological analysis)

He won't get that attention though, at least in the next few months. An independent run? Maybe....

The Libertarian Party has already contacted him and is seriously considering it.

Support cools for the Tea Party and the GOP

...

...

...

Now, here’s the bad news for the GOP. Its unfavorable rating among the general public has always been higher than its favorable. Back in September 2010, it was a 49 percent-43 percent split. Today, it’s 55 percent-36 percent. More ominous for the Republican party is that even its standing in Tea Party districts has gone underwater. In September 2010, the GOP was viewed favorably in those districts by 51 percent and unfavorably by 43 percent. Today, the party is viewed favorably by 41 percent and unfavorably by 48 percent.

Basically, the cranky electorate that threw the bums out in 2008, in special elections in 2009 and in the midterms of 2010 remains so. And why shouldn’t they be? The dysfunction in Washington, especially over the last year, has given them plenty to be angry about.

Yeah, for the last couple weeks, the generic congressional ballot poll has started opening a gap in favor of Democrats. And that is according to RCP where the only poll favoring Republicans is the over-represented and unreliable Rasmussen.

On the presidential election, Obama has a tough time against "generic Republican," but he leads any of the actual candidates by at least 5 points.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

The Libertarian Party has already contacted him and is seriously considering it.

If the coming generational allignment affects the GOP the way that I think it will then sometime by early in the 2020's a candidate like Gary Johnson will have at least a realistic chance to win the Republican nomination. But for the next couple of cycles I'm afraid that we're still going to be stuck with the inertia of the culture war era coalitions.

I did write coalitions in plural because the hangover from the 3T alliances still prevades the Democrats to but we won't really be able to measure it's extent again until 2016 when there should be an open race for the Democratic nomination.

Not sure where to post this but here is an interesting article on America's regional cultures and the future of the Tea Party: http://www.alternet.org/story/153255...d/?page=entire

The following is a brief excerpt:

Backed by the Midlands, the Left Coast, and the Far West, Yankeedom dominated the federation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, though Reconstruction lost them the support of Appalachia. In the following decades, alliances shifted around based on the fear of Yankee-directed federal power, but over the past half century the regional blocs have remained stable. Yankeedom, New Netherland, and the Left Coast have faced off against the Deep South, Tidewater, Greater Appalachia, and the Far West over civil rights, the Vietnam and Iraq wars, the environmental and gay rights movements, health care and financial reform, and the last three presidential elections.



The “northern” alliance has consistently favored the maintenance of a strong central government, federal checks on corporate power, and the conservation of natural resources, regardless of which party was dominant in the region at any given time. (Recall that prior to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, the Republicans were the party of Yankeedom.) The presidents they have produced—John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and Barack Obama—have all sought to better society through government programs, expanded civil rights protections, and environmental safeguards. All faced opposition from the Dixie-led nations even from within their own parties. With the southern takeover of the GOP, all three nations have become overwhelmingly Democratic in recent years.



The goal of the Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for four centuries: to control and maintain a one-party state with a colonial-style economy based on large-scale agriculture and the extraction of primary resources by a compliant, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible. Not until the 1960s was it compelled by African American uprisings and external intervention to abandon caste, sharecropper, and poll tax systems designed to keep the disadvantaged majority of their region’s population out of the political process. Since then, they have relied on fear-mongering— over racial mixing, gun control, illegal immigrants, and the alleged evils of secularization—to maintain support. In office they’ve instead focused on cutting taxes for the rich, funneling massive subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies, rolling back labor and environmental programs, and creating “guest worker” programs and “right to work” laws to ensure a cheap, compliant labor supply. Tidewater, weakened to satellite status over the past 150 years, has fallen in line. But keeping Greater Appalachia and, now, the Far West in the coalition has been trickier, as both have strong populist and libertarian streaks that run counter to the interests of the modern-day southern aristocracy.

Awesome article, JAdams. This fits my neck of the woods really well:

since the outset Yankeedom has put great emphasis on perfecting earthly society through social engineering, individual self-denial for the common good, and the aggressive assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, community (rather than individual) empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats, corporations, and other tyrannies.

And explains why our culture drives Libertarian types crazy.

Backed by the Midlands, the Left Coast, and the Far West, Yankeedom dominated the federation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, though Reconstruction lost them the support of Appalachia. In the following decades, alliances shifted around based on the fear of Yankee-directed federal power, but over the past half century the regional blocs have remained stable. Yankeedom, New Netherland, and the Left Coast have faced off against the Deep South, Tidewater, Greater Appalachia, and the Far West over civil rights, the Vietnam and Iraq wars, the environmental and gay rights movements, health care and financial reform, and the last three presidential elections.

The “northern” alliance has consistently favored the maintenance of a strong central government, federal checks on corporate power, and the conservation of natural resources, regardless of which party was dominant in the region at any given time. (Recall that prior to the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, the Republicans were the party of Yankeedom.) The presidents they have produced—John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and Barack Obama—have all sought to better society through government programs, expanded civil rights protections, and environmental safeguards. All faced opposition from the Dixie-led nations even from within their own parties. With the southern takeover of the GOP, all three nations have become overwhelmingly Democratic in recent years.

Pretty good up to here.

This is pure prejudice and stereotypical poppycock.

The goal of the Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for four centuries: to control and maintain a one-party state with a colonial-style economy based on large-scale agriculture and the extraction of primary resources by a compliant, low-wage workforce with as few labor, workplace safety, health care, and environmental regulations as possible. Not until the 1960s was it compelled by African American uprisings and external intervention to abandon caste, sharecropper, and poll tax systems designed to keep the disadvantaged majority of their region’s population out of the political process. Since then, they have relied on fear-mongering— over racial mixing, gun control, illegal immigrants, and the alleged evils of secularization—to maintain support. In office they’ve instead focused on cutting taxes for the rich, funneling massive subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies, rolling back labor and environmental programs, and creating “guest worker” programs and “right to work” laws to ensure a cheap, compliant labor supply. Tidewater, weakened to satellite status over the past 150 years, has fallen in line. But keeping Greater Appalachia and, now, the Far West in the coalition has been trickier, as both have strong populist and libertarian streaks that run counter to the interests of the modern-day southern aristocracy.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

This is pure prejudice and stereotypical poppycock.



James50

The inordinate support for Republicans in the South (especially among whites, up to 90% in the deep south), compared to other places, and their policies which are well described in the quoted piece, proves that it is not poppycock. That's why the Republicans are in danger of becoming the regional party of the South, unless more people in the South wake up and throw over their current ideologies, powers, prejudices and fears. It has started to happen, particularly as people from the north migrate into places like North Carolina and Northern VA. Then the Republican Party would have to change, or die.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The inordinate support for Republicans in the South (especially among whites, up to 90% in the deep south), compared to other places, and their policies which are well described in the quoted piece, proves that it is not poppycock. That's why the Republicans are in danger of becoming the regional party of the South, unless more people in the South wake up and throw over their current ideologies, powers, prejudices and fears. It has started to happen, particularly as people from the north migrate into places like North Carolina and Northern VA. Then the Republican Party would have to change, or die.

Then explain why the legislatures of places like Wisconsin and Ohio are now republican, and indeed why, in the 2010 election, Republicans captured a majority of state legislatures. Pretty good for a "regional party".Remember the left is fact based.James50

Originally Posted by James50

The explain why the legislatures of places like Wisconsin and Ohio are now republican, and indeed why, in the 2010 election, Republicans captured a majority of state legislatures. Pretty good for a "regional party".

Remember the left is fact based.

James50

Even a dead cat will bounce.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Even a dead cat will bounce.

Is there anything more vile than alternet?

(Heh. I have been waiting for several days for an opportunity to say that.)

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The inordinate support for Republicans in the South (especially among whites, up to 90% in the deep south), compared to other places, and their policies which are well described in the quoted piece, proves that it is not poppycock. That's why the Republicans are in danger of becoming the regional party of the South, unless more people in the South wake up and throw over their current ideologies, powers, prejudices and fears. It has started to happen, particularly as people from the north migrate into places like North Carolina and Northern VA. Then the Republican Party would have to change, or die.

The part I agree on is this; The Virginia State GOP is pushing their regional buddies into positions which the local GOP do not support. I voted for Pat Herrity and all I got was this Fimian -State GOP lackey.

Originally Posted by James50

Is there anything more vile than alternet?

(Heh. I have been waiting for several days for an opportunity to say that.)

James50

wheeee!!!!

I need to grow another foot or something because that went right over my head.