Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Lesson #1: you can't win if you don't play. Obama let his Presidency just drift along, instead of standing up and speaking his mind. My God! He has the oratorical skills to own the bully pulpit like no other, yet he just equivocated. Where is the passion? The blame resides with the one who failed at his task. The Republicans played their roles to the hilt ... and they still are.

I think it's exaggerating to say he "failed at his task." He didn't do as well as he could have done. The voters are responsible for failing to vote correctly; no excuses. There was no reason whatever to vote for the stupid Republicans.

A muddle at this point gets us where David Kaiser has been predicting for months - essentially, nowhere. If there is to be any serious change, there must be an epic battle to win or lose. Since BHO is not the type to go looking for one, or fighting one if he can avoid it, I don't see that happening.

That's about the best we can hope for, for 10 or 13 years to come; muddle.

Remember, I'm considering more than just the current situation here.

Originally Posted by James50

Latest higher education bubble update:



Read the whole thing.

Without cheap credit, this bubble would have ended long ago. When it goes, which it will, there will be carnage everywhere; and people slapping their heads saying "how could I have been such a fool!" It will be just like housing.

James50

You certainly have a point that education costs too much and 10K ought to be enough to attend many schools. Prices are ridiculous and students don't get the full value of what they pay too much for, whether the state helps or not. In states like CA, it is also a problem that the state no longer supports higher education. The prices are so high now that the interest charged doesn't make much difference. Probably many students already default; I wonder if that doesn't already figure in the high tuition being charged. I don't see a "bubble" bursting unless there's a sudden change. But some colleges could start losing enrollment, or even going out of business.

Romney is not a shoo in for the GOP nomnation yet.

Originally Posted by npr.org

An Insider Advantage poll done for The Augusta Chronicle and The Savannah Morning News shows Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in a statistical tie. Romney's support was put at 23 percent while Gingrich's was at 21 percent. The poll had a margin-of-error of 3.6 percent.

South Carolina Republicans have a history of doing as their leaders wish on primary day. But this is the first GOP primary since the 2008 bank meltdown.
Nex week's primary may be more interesting than many think.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Romney is not a shoo in for the GOP nomnation yet.
South Carolina Republicans have a history of doing as their leaders wish on primary day. But this is the first GOP primary since the 2008 bank meltdown.
Nex week's primary may be more interesting than many think.

Possible resuscitation of Gingrich's campaign could occur if he can win the South Carolina Republican Primary.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Possible resuscitation of Gingrich's campaign could occur if he can win the South Carolina Republican Primary.

That might happen. Gingrich is still basically a stronger candidate than Santorum or Perry, according to their horoscopes and my research. Santorum has the planets on his side now, and this is keeping him afloat. But if Gingrich can stay afloat until the Summer, a similar benefit will accrue to him. His luck will improve and Santorum's will fall, as Jupiter moves from Santorum's sun sign into Gingrich's. But that's a big IF, and I still think Romney has the inside track and will be the nominee.

Originally Posted by James50

You think all politicians running for President are nut jobs. Why wouldn't you think Ron Paul was a nut job?

James50

Ron Paul is definitely not a nut job - in the sense that "Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz was not one either.

They are both truly evil men; and the shameless economic Darwinism coupled with appeasement on foreign policy advocated by Paul would be the most calamitous combination possible for America.

Not only that, but Paul's positions on gays and abortion rips to shreds any claim he has on being a libertarian. It is far more accurate to characterize Paul as a neo-Nazi.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Ron Paul is definitely not a nut job - in the sense that "Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz was not one either.

They are both truly evil men; and the shameless economic Darwinism coupled with appeasement on foreign policy advocated by Paul would be the most calamitous combination possible for America.

Not only that, but Paul's positions on gays and abortion rips to shreds any claim he has on being a libertarian. It is far more accurate to characterize Paul as a neo-Nazi.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That might happen. Gingrich is still basically a stronger candidate than Santorum or Perry, according to their horoscopes and my research. Santorum has the planets on his side now, and this is keeping him afloat. But if Gingrich can stay afloat until the Summer, a similar benefit will accrue to him. His luck will improve and Santorum's will fall, as Jupiter moves from Santorum's sun sign into Gingrich's. But that's a big IF, and I still think Romney has the inside track and will be the nominee.

While I don't subscribe to astrology personally, I can agree with your broad analysis here. As I see it the anybody but Romney camp is divided, so Romney right now is most likely to win the nomination. However I do believe this could be a very long primary campaign, which might not end until the RNC in August.

I have a gut feeling that 2012 is going to be 2010 in reverse, there is going to be lower than normal turnout among the Evangelical crowd of Romney is the nominee, allowing Obama a win even if many Independents vote for Romney. If Santorum or Gingrich is the nominee the Independents will vote for Obama

Originally Posted by Odin

I have a gut feeling that 2012 is going to be 2010 in reverse, there is going to be lower than normal turnout among the Evangelical crowd of Romney is the nominee, allowing Obama a win even if many Independents vote for Romney. If Santorum or Gingrich is the nominee the Independents will vote for Obama

Makes sense, though the RW Noise Machine is making dire predictions of how devastating a second Obama term will be, so the turn-out may be a lot higher for Romney than it should be. The sad part is, Romney will have locked himself into a no compromise position, which he will simply not be able to maintain. If he gets the brass ring in '12, he'll be hobbled in '14 and toast in '16.

It is being reported Jon Huntsman will drop out of the GOP race tomorrow.

zài jiàn

Originally Posted by TeddyR

It is being reported Jon Huntsman will drop out of the GOP race tomorrow.

zài jiàn

The best of the lot.... now out of the race.

President Obama knew what he was doing when he appointed him as Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

I'm surprised that there isn't a "Republicans for Obama" group already formed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The best of the lot.... now out of the race.

President Obama knew what he was doing when he appointed him as Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

I'm surprised that there isn't a "Republicans for Obama" group already formed.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Makes sense, though the RW Noise Machine is making dire predictions of how devastating a second Obama term will be, so the turn-out may be a lot higher for Romney than it should be. The sad part is, Romney will have locked himself into a no compromise position, which he will simply not be able to maintain. If he gets the brass ring in '12, he'll be hobbled in '14 and toast in '16.

I think this is why we are seeing the line up of candidates we have in the primaries. None of the smart or good candidates want to run. It's a no win situation. Even if you win, you lose. Who would want that job right now? I don't know enough about congressional history to say for certain, but if this isn't the worst congress we have had in history, it's probably pretty close. And it's not a matter of just being able to replace a few members to turn this thing around. The majority of the people in congress need to go and that is going to take several election cycles.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

Wow, those guys think Perry, Gingrich, & Santorum are all socialists worse than Obama... hell... they call Santorum and his family communists...

You sure that isn't a parody site?

~Chas'88

Why arguments about the 1% will ultimately go nowhere.

1% Elizabeth Warren can't have it both ways.

Who was it who bitterly said no one gets rich on their own? None other than the self-proclaimed champion of the middle class, Harvard professor Lizzy Warren.

Well, she should know. After finally filing her financial disclosure forms, it is clear that Lizzy is a member of the 1 percent.

When a candidate initially enters a race, he or she usually conducts a vulnerability study to investigate potential problems in his or her background. One of the ultimate goals of this research is to prevent the candidate from making false claims or attacking an opponent on a difficulty they share. You don’t want to be a hypocrite.

Warren’s people either failed to do one or decided that because Lizzy is a Democrat, they can do anything they want and never be held accountable. Why not? No one held Gov. Deval Patrick responsible for lying about cutting property taxes. U.S. Rep. John Tierney has not been forced to explain his claims of ignorance about his wife’s illegal activities. I could go on and on.

Lizzy has suggested she believes it takes a village to get rich. Her experience indicates it actually takes a part-time job at Harvard. In 2009, her salary was $350,000 and she earned $429,000 for 2010 and 2011.
She also raked in $136,000 in royalties from her books, $10,000 for lecturing at a Boston law firm, $90,000 for consulting for a Florida law firm and $43,000 for working for Traveler’s Insurance.
Wait one minute; I thought insurance compan-- ies were evil, according to the Obama administration.

Let’s not forget the Oklahoma transplant earned a hefty salary for part-time government work. As a special adviser for President Obama, she was compensated $165,000 from September 2010 through August 2011 and she received $192,000 for serving on the Congressional panel overseeing TARP.

So we can say that based on her own experience, she’s at least part right. No one gets rich on his or her own . . . when they are working for the government. Because that’s taxpayer money.

Just like every other middle-class household in Massachusetts, her investments are valued at $3 million. Is her middle name Forbes?

Her home is estimated to be worth $1 million to $5 million. That doesn’t cut her out of the 99 percent because it is located in the politically correct neighborhood of Cambridge. It is middle class when you compare it to the pads of her fellow Democrats, U.S. Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick.

The only thing that could make her a more hypocritical class warrior is if she anchored a yacht in Rhode Island.

There is nothing wrong with being financially well-off. The problem is that Lizzy wants everyone in the 1 percent to feel guilty about their success while she lands another six-figure part-time gig.

James50

So if Romney gets the nom, who do you guys think Romney's VP pick will be? Santorum, Huntsman, ?

President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney are statistically tied in a hypothetical general election matchup, according to the latest CNN/ORC International Poll.

In the poll, Obama shows signs of weakness on the economy, while Romney is seen by some as out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Obama is also virtually tied with Rep. Ron Paul but has a solid lead over Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in hypothetical head-to-head matchups.

Also in the poll, more respondents think Romney is better suited to get the economy back on track than Obama, 53% to 40%.

The poll was conducted on January 11-12 after Romney won the New Hampshire primary.

Holy smokes! Ron Paul and Obama in statistical tie???? Obama may be in more trouble than I thought.

James50

Originally Posted by millennialX

So if Romney gets the nom, who do you guys think Romney's VP pick will be? Santorum, Huntsman, ?

Huntsman would help with the center. Santorum with the right. It could be either. The main thing in picking a VP is "do no harm". I would take Huntsman if I were Romney.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Huntsman would help with the center. Santorum with the right. It could be either. The main thing in picking a VP is "do no harm". I would take Huntsman if I were Romney.

James50

Well, that would sew up the Utah LDS vote!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The best of the lot.... now out of the race.

Thank you, American primary system.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Well, that would sew up the Utah LDS vote!

I would go with Rubio or Christie.

Originally Posted by millennialX

So if Romney gets the nom, who do you guys think Romney's VP pick will be? Santorum, Huntsman, ?

Whoever comes off as the best *Christian.* He knows that his being a Mormon could have its downfalls.

I spent the weekend with a lot of Republican political junkies. They all seem to think Rubio is the man, although I would be surprised to see the GOP do without any white Protestants. . .Huntsman surely would be a Mormon too far. I have wondered if Obama might pick him, though!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I spent the weekend with a lot of Republican political junkies. They all seem to think Rubio is the man, although I would be surprised to see the GOP do without any white Protestants. . .Huntsman surely would be a Mormon too far. I have wondered if Obama might pick him, though!

Good point about Huntsman also being Mormon. I hadn't even thought of that, but the evangelicals would never go for it.