2012 Presidential race

[CNYSkinFan]

Might as well start this thread because I am sure we will need it sooner or later.

I did not actually want to start a thread on this other thing but Newt's fledgling campaign has a mass rebellion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110609/ap_on_el_ge/us_gingrich_campaign)

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.
Rick Tyler, Gingrich's spokesman, said he, campaign manager Rob Johnson and senior strategists had resigned, along with aides in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Other officials said Gingrich was informed that his entire high command was quitting in a meeting earlier in the day. They cited differences over the direction of the campaign but were not more specific.
The officials declined to be identified by name, saying they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.
Gingrich told the group he intends to stay in the race, they added.


Please stay in Newt...please?

[akhhorus]

Newt Gingrich
I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles.
8 minutes ago

Via Facebook. Newt's gone rogue!

[CNYSkinFan]

Via Facebook. Newt's gone rogue!
what did los angeles ever due to deserve this?

[akhhorus]

what did los angeles ever due to deserve this?

TMZ? Lohanapalooza? The Kardashians? take your pick.

[shally]

Might as well start this thread because I am sure we will need it sooner or later.

I did not actually want to start a thread on this other thing but Newt's fledgling campaign has a mass rebellion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110609/ap_on_el_ge/us_gingrich_campaign)



Please stay in Newt...please?

he has NO chance.. at either the nomination, or in an election..

[akhhorus]

http://twitpic.com/599rot/full

Apparently really posted on CL by someone with a sense of humor.

[Death_Venom]

he has NO chance.. at either the nomination, or in an election..

I totally agree. I do not think Newt has a likeable public persona.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I thought Newt stood out when all the other candidates were promising to single handedly eliminate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he was the only guy to tell the truth - which is that the President can't even do that. It will take 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the house.

[RedskinsDave]

I thought Newt stood out when all the other candidates were promising to single handedly eliminate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he was the only guy to tell the truth - which is that the President can't even do that. It will take 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the house.

He may not be likable but he is intelligent (relationships excepted).

[Death_Venom]

He may not be likable but he is intelligent (relationships excepted).

Herbert Hoover was considered to be one of the most intelligent individuals to hold the office of the President-look what happened to him.....A high IQ is nothing without charisma to inspire.

[akhhorus]

Herbert Hoover was considered to be one of the most intelligent individuals to hold the office of the President-look what happened to him.....A high IQ is nothing without charisma to inspire.

Hoover's problem wasn't charisma or intelligence, he was too dogmatic in his beliefs. When the Great Depression first hit, it could have been prevented if the Federal Reserve stepped in at the first shockwave that created a credit crunch before Black Tuesday(if the Fed did the same in '08, there would have been a major depression again). Hoover forbid the Feds from interfering(including getting into a small fight with the Senate over it), and after the crash, stuff like the Smoot/Hawley Tariff and never doing anything to secure the banking industry to put trust back into the system just kept making things worse. All solely because Hoover refused to move off of his dogma about non-interference in markets.

Newt's problem isn't charisma or intelligence, he's just too chaotic a person to be a leader. He'd make a great VP imo.

[shally]

Hoover's problem wasn't charisma or intelligence, he was too dogmatic in his beliefs. When the Great Depression first hit, it could have been prevented if the Federal Reserve stepped in at the first shockwave that created a credit crunch before Black Tuesday(if the Fed did the same in '08, there would have been a major depression again). Hoover forbid the Feds from interfering(including getting into a small fight with the Senate over it), and after the crash, stuff like the Smoot/Hawley Tariff and never doing anything to secure the banking industry to put trust back into the system just kept making things worse. All solely because Hoover refused to move off of his dogma about non-interference in markets.

Newt's problem isn't charisma or intelligence, he's just too chaotic a person to be a leader. He'd make a great VP imo.


far too much baggage, even for a VEEP candidate.. the press would gut him weekly

[CNYSkinFan]

so can someone explain to me the tea party position against cervical cancer innoculations? I thought they hated Obamacare, but after the attacks on that liberal pinko rick Perry and cheers for an uninsured person's hypothetical death the other night and cheers for rick Perrys 234 lethal injections I am starting to think that they are hoping for a dystopian future where bloodsport is a reality

[dj_stouty]

Geez...how many debates are the republicans going to have? Total overkill...

I was really hoping Chris Christie would end up running, but now he is backing Romney and will likely be his frontrunner for VP. Not too happy, as I'm not fully sold on Romney yet.

[shally]

Geez...how many debates are the republicans going to have? Total overkill...

I was really hoping Chris Christie would end up running, but now he is backing Romney and will likely be his frontrunner for VP. Not too happy, as I'm not fully sold on Romney yet.

This is going to be a "hold your nose and vote" election for a lot of people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum

then again, maybe what this country needs right now is for passions to cool a bit, and pols to work together a little bit for the common good............................................NA H... that aint gonna happen..lol

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

Originally Posted by akhhorus View Post
Hoover's problem wasn't charisma or intelligence, he was too dogmatic in his beliefs. . All solely because Hoover refused to move off of his dogma about non-interference in markets.

AK,Hoover's biggest problem was he thought he and The FBI were above the law while everybody else were basically criminals.had hoover done some of the stuff he did as head of the fbi today,he would have been sentenced and convicted on federal charges of corruption,to theft,to accepting payoffs from organized crime on all those many bets he made at racetracks all over the usa.i just wish we could have gotten to his top secret files before his secretary destroyed them all within a few hours after his death.and do you know why he never went after the mob? meyer lansky allegedly had pictures of him in drag and performing a lewd act on his boyfriend,clyde tolson.

[RedskinsDave]

Wrong Hoover.

[akhhorus]

Geez...how many debates are the republicans going to have? Total overkill...

I was really hoping Chris Christie would end up running, but now he is backing Romney and will likely be his frontrunner for VP. Not too happy, as I'm not fully sold on Romney yet.

If Romney is the nominee, I don't think he could pick Christie without alienating the tea party(who already don't trust him) or the movement conservatives(who see Romney as a liberal). He would have to pick someone that his right flank is fine with. If Romney wins the nomination and then runs to the middle(or is perceived to be doing so), he invites Perry or Cain as a 3rd party nominee he would have to deal with.

[Keino]

Wrong Hoover.

LMAO. Yea, Herbert, not J. Edgar.

[shally]

If Romney is the nominee, I don't think he could pick Christie without alienating the tea party(who already don't trust him) or the movement conservatives(who see Romney as a liberal). He would have to pick someone that his right flank is fine with. If Romney wins the nomination and then runs to the middle(or is perceived to be doing so), he invites Perry or Cain as a 3rd party nominee he would have to deal with.

i dont think Perry has shown himself to be an effective enough campaigner to justify a 3rd party..

Cain ?? you just never know.. he is definitely charismatic and seems to be able to hold his own in a way that Perry hasnt been able to

[akhhorus]

i dont think Perry has shown himself to be an effective enough campaigner to justify a 3rd party..

Cain ?? you just never know.. he is definitely charismatic and seems to be able to hold his own in a way that Perry hasnt been able to

All they would need is a stream of cash(check) and a desire to screw over Mitt Romney(check) lol.

[RedskinsDave]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Tea Baggers ran their own guy and handed the election to Obama. They don't appear to want to do more than obstruct as it is.

[akhhorus]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Tea Baggers ran their own guy and handed the election to Obama. They don't appear to want to do more than obstruct as it is.

Chuck Todd and some other pundits have been hinting at this for months. Either Romney runs as a centrist 3rd party candidate to screw the GOP or the tea party runs someone they prefer to screw Romney. Both seem plausible to me for the reason that both sides would have access to enough cash to be viable.

[shally]

Chuck Todd and some other pundits have been hinting at this for months. Either Romney runs as a centrist 3rd party candidate to screw the GOP or the tea party runs someone they prefer to screw Romney. Both seem plausible to me for the reason that both sides would have access to enough cash to be viable.

there is no way Romney runs as a 3rd party candidate.. his nomination is becoming more a fete accompli with every month..

whether he can win a general election is another matter.

as for the tea party, they need a candidate to coalesce around.. i dont know that they can pull that off.. i think they are more about making noise and pulling the GOP to the right

[Ibleedburgundy]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Tea Baggers ran their own guy and handed the election to Obama. They don't appear to want to do more than obstruct as it is.

The tea party lost any semblance of independence from the Republican party when they were co-opted during the 2010 election into supporting nearly 100% Republican candidates and zero Democrats. They will do as they are told, although perhaps not as enthusiastically for a guy like Romney.

[Ibleedburgundy]

This is going to be a "hold your nose and vote" election for a lot of people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum


I think the left will be energetic for Obama. All they need is a few more months of Republican proposals such as Cain's 999 (raise taxes on 75% of Americans in order to cut them for the top 10%) plan. They are already showing signs of life via occupy wall street.

[akhhorus]

there is no way Romney runs as a 3rd party candidate.. his nomination is becoming more a fete accompli with every month..


I really don't know about that. Romney can't seem to get past 25-30% of the primary vote, and after each movement conservative flameout, that cohort of voters is going to anyone not named Mitt. Thats why Cain has exploded in the polls imo: he's not Mitt and perry's a loser. Watch, that group of voters will go to Newt or back to Perry next.

whether he can win a general election is another matter.


He has a very fine line to walk to not alienate indy voters or his base.


The tea party lost any semblance of independence from the Republican party when they were co-opted during the 2010 election into supporting nearly 100% Republican candidates and zero Democrats. They will do as they are told, although perhaps not as enthusiastically for a guy like Romney.

I don't know about that. This has been what the Tea party has been waiting for since Obama was elected. I don't see them supporting someone who's passed a lot of policies as Governor which resemble Obama's goals/laws(RomneyCare, Gay rights, taxing the rich, raising taxes in general, etc).

[justinskins]

The tea party lost any semblance of independence from the Republican party when they were co-opted during the 2010 election into supporting nearly 100% Republican candidates and zero Democrats. They will do as they are told, although perhaps not as enthusiastically for a guy like Romney.

"Do as they are told" might be a little bit too strong. I would say that Republicans do an admirable job of rallying around their candidate, warts and all. Left-wingers preach solidarity, but right-wingers do it better.

However, when Romney wins the nomination (and I heartily agree with shally that it is when, not if, at this point), it will help narrow the enthusiasm gap between left and right. Tea partiers will accept him but only grudgingly. While lefties are disappointed in Obama, they know that Romney is the Wall Street candidate par excellence. I don't know if the Occupy Wall Street movement has any legs, but it has at least refocused the left on class struggle a little bit. Romney is the textbook example of a pro-business, board-room career politician. It will be easy to focus the left's anger against Romney. That will give Obama some juice from the left. I have know idea whether that will be enough to save his reelection.

[Ibleedburgundy]

"Do as they are told" might be a little bit too strong.

I don't give the teabaggers a lot of credit. When they first came out everyone in the media treated them as true independents. I was one of the few saying "nah, these are just a bunch of Republicans who want to pretend they didn't vote for Bush twice." I think their endorsements (Rob Portman, anyone?) and their opinions pretty much vindicate what I was saying. If they have an independent streak, it's only because they think certain Republicans aren't Republican enough lol.

Anyway, as far as the "do as they're told" comment goes, perhaps that is a bit strong. After all they did buck some establishment candidates like Murkowski, Castle, etc. but it's hard to take a movement seriously as independents when they vote nearly 100% Republican.

[justinskins]

I don't give the teabaggers a lot of credit. When they first came out everyone in the media treated them as true independents. I was one of the few saying "nah, these are just a bunch of Republicans who want to pretend they didn't vote for Bush twice." I think their endorsements (Rob Portman, anyone?) and their opinions pretty much vindicate what I was saying. If they have an independent streak, it's only because they think certain Republicans aren't Republican enough lol.

Anyway, as far as the "do as they're told" comment goes, perhaps that is a bit strong. After all they did buck some establishment candidates like Murkowski, Castle, etc. but it's hard to take a movement seriously as independents when they vote nearly 100% Republican.

I agree, independents is the wrong term - especially in its conventional sense connoting swing voters that lie between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats on the political spectrum. The Tea Partiers are a radical wing of the conservative moment. You won't find many Dems in there. As a radical group, they aren't in lockstep with the Republican establishment. I think they are strategic enough, though, to back a Republican presidential candidate as the only real shot for getting Obama out of office. The question is how much enthusiasm they will really have for someone like Romney.

[RedskinsDave]

The tea party lost any semblance of independence from the Republican party when they were co-opted during the 2010 election into supporting nearly 100% Republican candidates and zero Democrats. They will do as they are told, although perhaps not as enthusiastically for a guy like Romney.

You've gone off the deep end. How were they ever going to support a democrat?

[Ibleedburgundy]

You've gone off the deep end. How were they ever going to support a democrat?

My point is simply if you're going to support one party exclusively, you're not an independent.

[Keino]

I have been laughing at this line all morning: "nah, these are just a bunch of Republicans who want to pretend they didn't vote for Bush twice."

[shally]

My point is simply if you're going to support one party exclusively, you're not an independent.

honestly, how many people here have voted for more than one party in the last 4 or 5 national elections (assuming they are old enough to)?

I know i have (4 for 1 and 1 for the other), but most people might claim to be independent, but few vote that way in my experience talking to people who are being honest..

[Keino]

honestly, how many people here have voted for more than one party in the last 4 or 5 national elections (assuming they are old enough to)?

I know i have (4 for 1 and 1 for the other), but most people might claim to be independent, but few vote that way in my experience talking to people who are being honest..

National Elections? No Republicans for me. However, I voted for Connie Morella when she was my congresswoman and I voted for a number of Republicans in local elections, who by the way, have far more impact on our everyday lives than any national politician.

While not registered for a political party, my politics lean left of center and my votes reflect that.

[dj_stouty]

I'm not worried about the Tea Party. At the end of the day, they dislike Obama so much that they would rather vote for a flawed Republican than the status quo.

What I'm worried about is the lack of inspiring canidates for the GOP. This current crop looks like junk...

[Ibleedburgundy]

honestly, how many people here have voted for more than one party in the last 4 or 5 national elections (assuming they are old enough to)?

I know i have (4 for 1 and 1 for the other), but most people might claim to be independent, but few vote that way in my experience talking to people who are being honest..

I voted for Tom Davis twice and for Jon Warner, but that was back when there were moderate Republicans and "bipartisan" wasn't regarded as a four letter word by the base.

[akhhorus]

honestly, how many people here have voted for more than one party in the last 4 or 5 national elections (assuming they are old enough to)?

I know i have (4 for 1 and 1 for the other), but most people might claim to be independent, but few vote that way in my experience talking to people who are being honest..

I'll tell you whom I've voted for since 2000(In races that matter):
2000: Bush(mccain in the primary), Floyd Spence
2002: Lindsey Graham, Joe Wilson, Mark Sanford
2004: Bush, Tenenbaum(Can't stand DeMint), Henry Brown
2006: Didn't vote
2008: Daffy Duck for Prez, Van Hollen(the GOP candidate was a moron)
2010: Van Hollen(his office did me a big favor), wrote in myself for Senate, no vote on gov race.

So..
Pres: 2 GOP, 1 warner bros character
Senate: Myself, 1 Dem, 1 GOPer
House: 3-2 GOP/Dems
Gov: 2 GOP, 0 Dem.

I'm not worried about the Tea Party. At the end of the day, they dislike Obama so much that they would rather vote for a flawed Republican than the status quo.

What I'm worried about is the lack of inspiring canidates for the GOP. This current crop looks like junk...

+1

[cal_junior]

le mot juste:

zUA2rDVrmNg

[RedskinsDave]

That video should play while circling the drain.

[Keino]

That video should play while circling the drain.

Trust me, every flush I hear Cain, Perry and Bachman talking. lol

[RedskinsDave]

Trust me, every flush I hear Cain, Perry and Bachman talking. lol

Racist, Jesus hater, sexist.

[dj_stouty]

Just another inarticulate GOP blowhard running for president along side a dozen other inarticulate GOP blowhards running for president. I'm so sick of the options my party continues to push on us. This is the 209th GOP debate this year and the canidates continue to look more and more foolish every damn time they open their mouths.

The GOP debates remind me of an SNL skit, except they aren't acting. They are just that idiotic and irrational. Not to mention they are about as charasmatic as Ralph; the head of lettuce from What's Happening? (I hope someone gets this reference!)

Perry looked like an idiot. He can't remember (3) simple agencies? Heck, he had to remebmer a lot more than (3) items when he was a male cheerleader back at Texas A&M and chanting to the 12th man!

The Amature Hour continues through 2011...

[Keino]

Just another inarticulate GOP blowhard running for president along side a dozen other inarticulate GOP blowhards running for president. I'm so sick of the options my party continues to push on us. This is the 209th GOP debate this year and the canidates continue to look more and more foolish every damn time they open their mouths.

The GOP debates remind me of an SNL skit, except they aren't acting. They are just that idiotic and irrational. Not to mention they are about as charasmatic as Ralph; the head of lettuce from What's Happening? (I hope someone gets this reference!)

Perry looked like an idiot. He can't remember (3) simple agencies? Heck, he had to remebmer a lot more than (3) items when he was a male cheerleader back at Texas A&M and chanting to the 12th man!

The Amature Hour continues through 2011...


Wow. Not Rerun's idol to worship!

LMAO

[dj_stouty]

Wow. Not Rerun's idol to worship!

LMAO


In case anyone has 5 minutes of their life to spare....

22LF6gaAiKc

[cal_junior]

I think it's funny Cain is blaming the "Democrat machine" for bringing these women out of the woodwork. Hasn't the guy seen a poll? Dems would love for him to get the GOP nomination.

[akhhorus]

The GOP potential nominees are idiots because the extreme part of the base don't want someone who is moderate and, to be frank, sane. Mitch Daniels, Christie, Jeb Bush, even Haley Barbour all dropped out because they couldn't win over the tea party and Palinistas. As Ed Rogers, a long time GOP hand, said: 'The GOP voters don't want a technocrat, they want someone to just yell the loudest about Obama'.

[RedskinsDave]

I think it's funny Cain is blaming the "Democrat machine" for bringing these women out of the woodwork. Hasn't the guy seen a poll? Dems would love for him to get the GOP nomination.

That's my favorite argument from the Cain supporters. They fail to recognize that the left would LOVE to see Cain v. Obama. The only reason I would want to see it would be for the slogan Cain v. Unable. It's biblical and catchy, I LIKE it!

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

anybody but ole newt! he's the biggest hypocrite in the world!

[akhhorus]

Herman Cain seriously considering dropping out of the race.

[CNYSkinFan]

Herman Cain seriously considering dropping out of the race.
why not, he will make sooo much money on the pundit circuit and not actually have to learn anything.

I am willing to think about betting on Gingrich being the nominee with the right odds given

[shally]

why not, he will make sooo much money on the pundit circuit and not actually have to learn anything.

I am willing to think about betting on Gingrich being the nominee with the right odds given

if Nixon can come back from the dead, Gingrich could certainly.. but that is a dream candidate for Obama to face

[akhhorus]

if Nixon can come back from the dead, Gingrich could certainly.. but that is a dream candidate for Obama to face

+1. Obama will cruise if he's facing Newt. Too much baggage across the board and there's way too much video of Newt saying stupid things or supporting things Obama's done(like the individual mandate).

Romney's fading also. Newt's pulled ahead in his firewall state(NH) and Huntsman is taking the moderate vote from him(he's up to 11%).

[shally]

+1. Obama will cruise if he's facing Newt. Too much baggage across the board and there's way too much video of Newt saying stupid things or supporting things Obama's done(like the individual mandate).

Romney's fading also. Newt's pulled ahead in his firewall state(NH) and Huntsman is taking the moderate vote from him(he's up to 11%).

Romney will end up winning the nomination by attrition, then

ironically, i think he will give Obama a hard time and the focus will likely be on Obama's handling of the economy instead of Newt's pecadillo's, Cain's serial
wick-dipping, Bachman's crazy eyes, Perry's senior moments...

the debates will likely put everyone to sleep including the moderators and audiences

[CNYSkinFan]

oh Rick Perry...I love you



You might say Rick Perry courted the youth, but not the whole youth, in a campaign appearance at a New Hampshire college.

Speaking at Saint Anselm on Tuesday, he appealed to students who will be at least 21 before Election Day to vote for him.

As for those younger than 21, he merely asked them to work hard on his behalf. Doesn't he want their votes, too?

It turns out Perry didn't know or had forgotten that the voting age in America is 18.

The flub caused some whispers in the crowd.

In a recent presidential debate, Perry forgot a key element of his plan to reduce the size of government.



source (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/oops_rick_perry_gets_voting_age_wrong.html)

[akhhorus]

oh Rick Perry...I love you



source (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/oops_rick_perry_gets_voting_age_wrong.html)

He also gave them the wrong voting day. Just...*facepalm*

[RedskinsDave]

Perry hates the number three.

[fent]

oh Rick Perry...I love you



source (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/oops_rick_perry_gets_voting_age_wrong.html)

It's a not-so-big secret down here that he's really not that smart, especially when it comes to details. He's a great campaigner (typically), and finds ways to win when he shouldn't, but he's not a policy/detail person at all. He likes the title of Governor but doesn't really care about the job part of it.

[CNYSkinFan]

It's a not-so-big secret down here that he's really not that smart, especially when it comes to details. He's a great campaigner (typically), and finds ways to win when he shouldn't, but he's not a policy/detail person at all. He likes the title of Governor but doesn't really care about the job part of it.
When they werecaalling him Bush Light I thought maybe light on the overly religious emphasis, not light on the intelligence department. And of course it turns out Perry is more ofa religious nut then Bush as well. I think Bush was pandering for votes with h8is "Jesus saved me" stuff but Perry isn't Pandering, he is just bat shit crazy. I blame the high collars that wont let blood into the brain.

[RedskinsDave]

It's a not-so-big secret down here that he's really not that smart, especially when it comes to details. He's a great campaigner (typically), and finds ways to win when he shouldn't, but he's not a policy/detail person at all. He likes the title of Governor but doesn't really care about the job part of it.

So like Vinny was the director of player personnel?

[redskin_rich]

Perry has my vote. He's got it right... If you're not old enough to drink, you shouldn't vote. lol

[RedskinsReaper21]

The only reason I would want to see it would be for the slogan Cain v. Unable. It's biblical and catchy, I LIKE it!

So like Vinny was the director of player personnel?

LOL. Dave's on a roll...

:honor:

[shally]

Perry has my vote. He's got it right... If you're not old enough to drink, you shouldn't vote. lol

if you are old enough to see combat and get killed in service to this country, you are old enough to vote

on the other hand, i have always had difficulty with the concept that people should have the right to force others to pay taxes that they themselves dont have to pay.. but, unfortunately, that horse is long out of the barn

[oldskinfan]

Anyone Google "Santorum" lately?

Good Lord, I know this is old news but someone told me about this yesterday.
The Santorum camp is trying to get Google to do something about it but they say "don't blame the messenger, go talk to to the web site owner".

I'm all for First Amendment Rights but this certainly is not in the best taste (what the #1 search result web site owner is doing).

Not sure what Santorum can legally do.

[akhhorus]

Anyone Google "Santorum" lately?

Good Lord, I know this is old news but someone told me about this yesterday.
The Santorum camp is trying to get Google to do something about it but they say "don't blame the messenger, go talk to to the web site owner".

I'm all for First Amendment Rights but this certainly is not in the best taste (what the #1 search result web site owner is doing).

Not sure what Santorum can legally do.

He can do what Dan Savage did, and game the google system so that it drops out of searches.

[CNYSkinFan]

Anyone Google "Santorum" lately?

Good Lord, I know this is old news but someone told me about this yesterday.
The Santorum camp is trying to get Google to do something about it but they say "don't blame the messenger, go talk to to the web site owner".

I'm all for First Amendment Rights but this certainly is not in the best taste (what the #1 search result web site owner is doing).

Not sure what Santorum can legally do.
Santorum brought it on himself. You don't get to compare an entire segment of the American public to beastiality without some reprecussions.

[Keino]

He can do what Dan Savage did, and game the google system so that it drops out of searches.

Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.

What's the problem?

[akhhorus]

Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.

What's the problem?

No problem, santorum's people should hire some SEO wizards to get that #1 spot back.

[Keino]

No problem, santorum's people should hire some SEO wizards to get that #1 spot back.

I think the definition is apt!

[Ibleedburgundy]

Santorum brought it on himself. You don't get to compare an entire segment of the American public to beastiality without some reprecussions.

Yeah. He had it coming. If he tries to fight it overtly, it's only going to get worse.

[RedskinsDave]

I wish someone would remind the guys who are losing the GOP race that Romney is going to be the candidate so they shouldn't try so hard to help Obama's campaign against him. Gingrich has put the waders on apparently. He is showing precisely why he isn't electable. As smart as he is, he's rather prickly when backed into a corner.

[akhhorus]

I wish someone would remind the guys who are losing the GOP race that Romney is going to be the candidate so they shouldn't try so hard to help Obama's campaign against him. Gingrich has put the waders on apparently. He is showing precisely why he isn't electable. As smart as he is, he's rather prickly when backed into a corner.

To be fair to Newt, Dirty Santorum, RuPaul etc: they stand to make more money if Obama is reelected lol.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I am enjoying it. The Republican establishment is acknowledging that the American people don't want a "true conservative" and so they predict Romney, with his liberal/moderate political history, is the only one who has a chance to beat the hardcore liberal. The Republican base has no such discipline, and so they fight the inevitable.

Gingrich, as ever, is only out for himself. Staying in the race longer and competing equals notoriety, and notoriety = $$$. He knows he's hurting Romney, just like Romney knew his super PACs were destroying Newt in Iowa.

The losing Republican candidates are doing real damage with their attacks on the scorched Earth business practices of Bain capital. This will be a weapon for Obama, and now it is bolstered with bipartisanship.

[RedskinsDave]

I am enjoying it. The Republican establishment is acknowledging that the American people don't want a "true conservative" and so they predict Romney, with his liberal/moderate political history, is the only one who has a chance to beat the hardcore liberal. The Republican base has no such discipline, and so they fight the inevitable.

I knew I could count on you to not remotely get it. Great work as always. Go brush up on how Obama hasn't been a complete failure and leave the GOP to those of us not still swooning over hype and chance.

Gingrich, as ever, is only out for himself. Staying in the race longer and competing equals notoriety, and notoriety = $$$. He knows he's hurting Romney, just like Romney knew his super PACs were destroying Newt in Iowa.

The losing Republican candidates are doing real damage with their attacks on the scorched Earth business practices of Bain capital. This will be a weapon for Obama, and now it is bolstered with bipartisanship.

You must have also missed that Clinton ripped Obama pretty good during their campaign. It's all going to come down to how people view Obama's presidency and, at this point, that's not very good.

[Ibleedburgundy]

You must have also missed that Clinton ripped Obama pretty good during their campaign.

Hillary Clinton did some damage, no doubt. But the difference is Hillary, unlike Gingrich, actually had a chance to win.

It's all going to come down to how people view Obama's presidency and, at this point, that's not very good.

If the economy continues on its current trend and the private sector creates 200,000 jobs per Month from now until November, Obama is a lock.

[RedskinsDave]

Hillary Clinton did some damage, no doubt. But the difference is Hillary, unlike Gingrich, actually had a chance to win.



If the economy continues on its current trend and the private sector creates 200,000 jobs per Month from now until November, Obama is a lock.

As much as I like good news on the economy, I think you guys who are getting so excited about December numbers are going to be sorely disappointed once January comes in and December is adjusted for seasonal hires. Regardless, he's still 7 ticks away from where the numbers were when he took over. Somehow you'll act like that's a good thing.

[Ibleedburgundy]

As much as I like good news on the economy, I think you guys who are getting so excited about December numbers are going to be sorely disappointed once January comes in and December is adjusted for seasonal hires. Regardless, he's still 7 ticks away from where the numbers were when he took over. Somehow you'll act like that's a good thing.

Your analysis makes sense so long as we attribute every job lost to Obama starting January 20th, 2009 - thus blaming him for a trend that began long before any of his policies were enacted. Rational voters will see that Obama inherited an economy that was bleeding jobs at a rate of 700,000 per Month, and now it is growing at a rate of 200,000 per month.

[RedskinsDave]

One month isn't a trend. Regardless, getting back to square one is only a success to those people who are able to ignore the trillions of dollars he wasted getting there.

[Ibleedburgundy]

One month isn't a trend.

Indeed, but 27 Months is:

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&noj=1&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=0Y07jBmO0csjRM:&imgrefurl=http://www.policymic.com/articles/bailouts-saved-us-from-a-second-great-depression&docid=TvN9gKLPougyVM&imgurl=http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bikini-graph-March-2011.jpg&w=944&h=495&ei=N-INT6PWCsLX0QGCl6X5BQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=373&vpy=323&dur=1734&hovh=162&hovw=310&tx=153&ty=90&sig=109131134751733911729&page=1&tbnh=107&tbnw=205&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&biw=1280&bih=804

Regardless, getting back to square one is only a success to those people who are able to ignore the trillions of dollars he wasted getting there.

Trillions? Obama spent $800 billion saving or creating 3.5 million jobs. Your boy Bush spent over $1 trillion on a war that accomplished, errrr, something I guess?

[RedskinsDave]

You claimed it was growing at 200k per month. It has done that ONCE. Thanks for linking to a site that wrote this though:

Yes, there were plenty of things to hate about the bailout. It not only saved the bad guys from a fate they deserved, but did almost nothing for the millions of ordinary people who got sucked into the vortex caused by this recklessness. (Despite the fact that TARP included strong elements aimed at helping Main Street.) The implementation of TARP was poorly managed and the government asked too little from the banks in return, squandering an opportunity for reform.

Yep, you got nothing when you go right to Bush and the wars, especially when your boy more or less ran the status quo there too until just recently. How's Gitmo going? So much for "change".

[Death_Venom]

You claimed it was growing at 200k per month. It has done that ONCE. Thanks for linking to a site that wrote this though:



Yep, you got nothing when you go right to Bush and the wars, especially when your boy more or less ran the status quo there too until just recently. How's Gitmo going? So much for "change".

I just like how Obama gave an open invitation to the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan by letting them know exactly when we will leave.......

[Ibleedburgundy]

You claimed it was growing at 200k per month. It has done that ONCE. Thanks for linking to a site that wrote this though:


TARP was enacted under Bush. One of the first things Obama did after he took office was ask more from the banks in return. Your Republican party fought against those concessions tooth and nail and labeled them "socialism" and a "Government takeover" of private industry.

Yep, you got nothing when you go right to Bush and the wars, especially when your boy more or less ran the status quo there too until just recently. How's Gitmo going? So much for "change".

Obama can not be blamed for not closing Gitmo. He did everything he could. Congress blocked efforts to put terrorists in maximum security prisons (where nobody has ever escaped). I suppose Obama could have defied congress but you would have criticized that as well. He's damned either way in your mind.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I just like how Obama gave an open invitation to the Taliban to re-take Afghanistan by letting them know exactly when we will leave.......

As opposed to just leaving and keeping your fingers crossed and hoping they wouldn't notice? lol.

Somehow I doubt you had a problem with Bush doing precisely the same thing in Iraq.

Enlighten me though: How does one end a war without planning a withdrawal? Think carefully.

[RedskinsDave]

TARP was enacted under Bush. One of the first things Obama did after he took office was ask more from the banks in return. Your Republican party fought against those concessions tooth and nail and labeled them "socialism" and a "Government takeover" of private industry.



Obama can not be blamed for not closing Gitmo. He did everything he could. Congress blocked efforts to put terrorists in maximum security prisons (where nobody has ever escaped). I suppose Obama could have defied congress but you would have criticized that as well. He's damned either way in your mind.

I know. Nothing is ever his fault. It's an amazing existence. Too bad we all have to pay for him being a crappy president since he doesn't.

[Death_Venom]

As opposed to just leaving and keeping your fingers crossed and hoping they wouldn't notice? lol.

Somehow I doubt you had a problem with Bush doing precisely the same thing in Iraq.

Enlighten me though: How does one end a war without planning a withdrawal? Think carefully.

I suppose we ignore the intel gathered about how the Taliban has told many of its factions "just wait until the US leaves and we can make our move"?

Clearly this is not a war against a clearly identifiable foe.Terrorists hide among civilians, etc. The moment you relax is the moment we will be attacked. The Taliban did not give up against the Russians (with our help they forced a with drawl) so what gives you the indication they are going to give up against the US or the Afghan government?

[justinskins]

I suppose we ignore the intel gathered about how the Taliban has told many of its factions "just wait until the US leaves and we can make our move"?

Clearly this is not a war against a clearly identifiable foe.Terrorists hide among civilians, etc. The moment you relax is the moment we will be attacked. The Taliban did not give up against the Russians (with our help they forced a with drawl) so what gives you the indication they are going to give up against the US or the Afghan government?

The Afghan government is too corrupt to be worth saving. And somehow I doubt the Taliban is going to get on their rowboats and invade the US.

[RedskinsDave]

We should piss on them.

[akhhorus]

The Afghan government is too corrupt to be worth saving. And somehow I doubt the Taliban is going to get on their rowboats and invade the US.

The only productive idea, imo, when it comes to negotiating with the Taliban is to break up Afghanistan. Let the Taliban oppress the Pashtun areas all they want. We'll kill any AQ members we find. Kabul, the north and the west can be their own non-pashtun country.

[shally]

The only productive idea, imo, when it comes to negotiating with the Taliban is to break up Afghanistan. Let the Taliban oppress the Pashtun areas all they want. We'll kill any AQ members we find. Kabul, the north and the west can be their own non-pashtun country.

the whole region is ungovernable.. let them revert to the tribal warfare and grudge settling that they thrive on.. as long as they have ANY outside presence to focus on they will kill outsiders.. as soon as they dont, their priorities will be to kill each other

[akhhorus]

the whole region is ungovernable.. let them revert to the tribal warfare and grudge settling that they thrive on.. as long as they have ANY outside presence to focus on they will kill outsiders.. as soon as they dont, their priorities will be to kill each other

In theory yes, but the anarchy(+the funding from opium/poppies) draws international terrorism. If the Taliban want peace, they have to hand over the few remaining top AQ leaders and they have to consent to letting us run drones over their territory against any future foreign terror cells.

[justinskins]

In theory yes, but the anarchy(+the funding from opium/poppies) draws international terrorism. If the Taliban want peace, they have to hand over the few remaining top AQ leaders and they have to consent to letting us run drones over their territory against any future foreign terror cells.

Yup, let's just "police" all the troubled areas of the worlds and fly drones everywhere. Sounds like a great way to prevent terrorism.

[akhhorus]

Yup, let's just "police" all the troubled areas of the worlds and fly drones everywhere. Sounds like a great way to prevent terrorism.

Is there a better plan? And there's not many of these areas(and none of them are that big).

[shally]

In theory yes, but the anarchy(+the funding from opium/poppies) draws international terrorism. If the Taliban want peace, they have to hand over the few remaining top AQ leaders and they have to consent to letting us run drones over their territory against any future foreign terror cells.

No, the region is ungovernable over any length of time.. Tribalism. Complete political corruption. Opium growing.. Terrible topography to try and civilize. people whose national sport is running around on horses whipping a headless goat carcass (and each other).. and that is when they are not settling centuries old grudges by killing each other

Let them have it.. this isnt the age of the Silk Road when we actually need Afghanistan for any global purpose

Get out of their way and let them freely kill themselves.. They have no interest in invading other countries, only fighting over sections of their own.. let them have it

[akhhorus]

No, the region is ungovernable over any length of time.. Tribalism. Complete political corruption. Opium growing.. Terrible topography to try and civilize. people whose national sport is running around on horses whipping a headless goat carcass (and each other).. and that is when they are not settling centuries old grudges by killing each other

Let them have it.. this isnt the age of the Silk Road when we actually need Afghanistan for any global purpose

Get out of their way and let them freely kill themselves.. They have no interest in invading other countries, only fighting over sections of their own.. let them have it

Waziristan, absolutely. The Uzbek/Tajik/Northern Alliance areas probably could get along under some western supported gov, mainly because the Pakistanis wouldnt interfere as much(they meddle in Afghani politics because they consider the Pashtun areas as part of Pakistan---Punjab, Afghani[by which they mean the Pashtun], Kashmir, sInd, BaluchSTAN).

Actually there is a good global purpose for Afghanistan: the trans afghani pipeline to the Indian ocean.

[shally]

Waziristan, absolutely. The Uzbek/Tajik/Northern Alliance areas probably could get along under some western supported gov, mainly because the Pakistanis wouldnt interfere as much(they meddle in Afghani politics because they consider the Pashtun areas as part of Pakistan---Punjab, Afghani[by which they mean the Pashtun], Kashmir, sInd, BaluchSTAN).

Actually there is a good global purpose for Afghanistan: the trans afghani pipeline to the Indian ocean.

again, all irrelevant in the larger scheme of things..

totally ungovernable and best left to revert back to the middle ages.. we only make it relevant by choosing to be there

[redskin_rich]

Seriously, Opium fields would be easy to spot and be disposed of with a quick drop of herbacide. I am quite sure we are aware of the every opium farm in that country. You can't grow that stuff in caves and I strongly doubt the Taliban has some kind of mega hydro underground greenhouses. They don't even have their own source of power. They still travel by horse...lol


I thought when we declared war on Afganistan, it was to eradicate Al Queda and to get rid of the Taliban, who harbored them.

[akhhorus]

again, all irrelevant in the larger scheme of things..

totally ungovernable and best left to revert back to the middle ages.. we only make it relevant by choosing to be there

We tried that after the Soviets pulled out. Didnt end well.

[shally]

We tried that after the Soviets pulled out. Didnt end well.

.. and it's better now after how many deaths ?

let's face it, if the Russians couldnt pacify the area without any morals or ethics regarding the way the war was fought, it simply cant be pacified.

we are wasting treasure and lives in a futile effort.. sure, there will be terrorists who use it as a safe haven.. but there will always be terrorists in that area.. i think it is folly to suggest if we dont pacify the area they are going to launch strikes against the US.. they will always try to do so, but there are no lack of other places the terrorists can use anyway.. just a futile effort..

[shally]

Seriously, Opium fields would be easy to spot and be disposed of with a quick drop of herbacide. I am quite sure we are aware of the every opium farm in that country. You can't grow that stuff in caves and I strongly doubt the Taliban has some kind of mega hydro underground greenhouses. They don't even have their own source of power. They still travel by horse...lol


I thought when we declared war on Afganistan, it was to eradicate Al Queda and to get rid of the Taliban, who harbored them.


just drop a dirty nuke on the area that will contaminate it for 1000 centuries and we are done with it...:niceday:

[akhhorus]

.. and it's better now after how many deaths ?

let's face it, if the Russians couldnt pacify the area without any morals or ethics regarding the way the war was fought, it simply cant be pacified.

we are wasting treasure and lives in a futile effort.. sure, there will be terrorists who use it as a safe haven.. but there will always be terrorists in that area.. i think it is folly to suggest if we dont pacify the area they are going to launch strikes against the US.. they will always try to do so, but there are no lack of other places the terrorists can use anyway.. just a futile effort..

We dont need to pacify it to prevent future 9-11s. We just need to keep AQ and other international terror rings from having a base to operate in. If the various Stans around Afghanistan want to host drones we can use over Afghanistan, then our commitment could just be propping up a faction like the old Northern Alliance so we have some presence.

[shally]

We dont need to pacify it to prevent future 9-11s. We just need to keep AQ and other international terror rings from having a base to operate in. If the various Stans around Afghanistan want to host drones we can use over Afghanistan, then our commitment could just be propping up a faction like the old Northern Alliance so we have some presence.

swatting at a hornet's nest seldom gets you anything good.. either set it on fire, drench it with toxins, or leave it alone.. there is no halfway measure that works

[akhhorus]

swatting at a hornet's nest seldom gets you anything good.. either set it on fire, drench it with toxins, or leave it alone.. there is no halfway measure that works

Ask the Taliban and AQ about how effective the drones have been. We just geeked the head of the Pakistan Taliban this past weekend.

[shally]

Ask the Taliban and AQ about how effective the drones have been. We just geeked the head of the Pakistan Taliban this past weekend.

... and a few wedding parties in the past as well.........................

[justinskins]

... and a few wedding parties in the past as well.........................

Well, I'm sure Afghan villagers don't mind getting blown up every once and a while so long as America can kill terrorists and maintain its access to strategic natural resources.

People in that part of the world don't want us there. So long as we are there, there will be no shortage of people willing to kill Americans.

[akhhorus]

Well, I'm sure Afghan villagers don't mind getting blown up every once and a while so long as America can kill terrorists and maintain its access to strategic natural resources.

People in that part of the world don't want us there. So long as we are there, there will be no shortage of people willing to kill Americans.

And if we totally leave terrorists have their old training grounds back. There might not be a good option here, but one of them makes us safer.

[shally]

Well, I'm sure Afghan villagers don't mind getting blown up every once and a while so long as America can kill terrorists and maintain its access to strategic natural resources.

People in that part of the world don't want us there. So long as we are there, there will be no shortage of people willing to kill Americans.

+1

either way they hate us.. either way they will want to kill us.. no reason to give them convenient local targets.. they arent coming to the western hemisphere on horses, so let them posture for CNN and go back to killing themselves..

[guess88]

swatting at a hornet's nest seldom gets you anything good.. either set it on fire, drench it with toxins, or leave it alone.. there is no halfway measure that works

Agreed. Ain't no half steppin!

[akhhorus]

+1

either way they hate us.. either way they will want to kill us.. no reason to give them convenient local targets.. they arent coming to the western hemisphere on horses, so let them posture for CNN and go back to killing themselves..

If they want to kill us either way, I'd rather be shooting at them. That way they're more focused on surviving day to day rather then focused on planning attacks.

[shally]

If they want to kill us either way, I'd rather be shooting at them. That way they're more focused on surviving day to day rather then focused on planning attacks.

didnt work for the Russians.. dont expect it would work for us

you can pick off some of the top crazies from time to time, plus a few hangers-on at wedding feasts, but they can replace them faster than we can rub them out..

just encourage the Pakistani's and a few regional powers to step into the quicksand and let them be the targets for a decade

[akhhorus]

didnt work for the Russians.. dont expect it would work for us

The Russians were trying to conquer, having drones in a nearby country is hardly that.

you can pick off some of the top crazies from time to time, plus a few hangers-on at wedding feasts, but they can replace them faster than we can rub them out..


This just isn't true. The drone attacks have been extremely effective in taking down AQ's leadership in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

just encourage the Pakistani's and a few regional powers to step into the quicksand and let them be the targets for a decade

Who do you think funds and supports the Taliban? The Pakis have been using them(and the Haqqanis) since the Soviets pulled out.

[shally]

The Russians were trying to conquer, having drones in a nearby country is hardly that.



This just isn't true. The drone attacks have been extremely effective in taking down AQ's leadership in Afghanistan/Pakistan.



Who do you think funds and supports the Taliban? The Pakis have been using them(and the Haqqanis) since the Soviets pulled out.


russians were trying to suppress because of the impact upon their own ethnic Muslim minorities, like the Chechins


who gives a flip who supports whom ? none of them are our allies or friends, including the Paks.

let them spend their days killing their own..

I have no problem with using drones to pick off idiots who come out of holes in the ground, but this is the real life equivalent to "whack-a-mole".. we shouldnt delude ourselves into thinking we are having any long term impact upon the region

[akhhorus]

russians were trying to suppress because of the impact upon their own ethnic Muslim minorities, like the Chechins


The Russians were doing it because fighting for control of Afghanistan has been a policy goal of theirs for 300 years.

who gives a flip who supports whom ? none of them are our allies or friends, including the Paks.

let them spend their days killing their own..


I pointed it out because your "solution" is to let the Pakis get suckered into it. Thats not going be realistic since the Pakis have been playing this game since the early 90s without getting suckered into it.

I have no problem with using drones to pick off idiots who come out of holes in the ground, but this is the real life equivalent to "whack-a-mole".. we shouldnt delude ourselves into thinking we are having any long term impact upon the region

Link (http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php)

Since 2006, there have been 2,150 leaders and operatives from Taliban, Al Qaeda, and allied extremist groups killed

And a list of the top AQ/Haqqani/Taliban who were killed by drones(with a explanation of why they mattered):

Link (http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php)

If you want to dismiss the effects of the Drone Strikes, go ahead. There's nothing that supports that. They're such a threat to the Pakistani based terrorists that they've been threatening to overthrow the current leadership(civilian and their army buddies) if they don't stop them.

[shally]

The R


]

If you want to dismiss the effects of the Drone Strikes, go ahead. There's nothing that supports that. They're such a threat to the Pakistani based terrorists that they've been threatening to overthrow the current leadership(civilian and their army buddies) if they don't stop them.

yeah, and they are busy re building the Siberian land bridge to invade Seattle...

[dj_stouty]

I'm still in shock that Mitt is the best thing the GOP can push forward against Obama. My favorite of the crap shoot was Christie but he pulled out and looks to be Mitt's VP canidate. I guess that will intrigue me enough to go to the polls....

[akhhorus]

I'm still in shock that Mitt is the best thing the GOP can push forward against Obama. My favorite of the crap shoot was Christie but he pulled out and looks to be Mitt's VP canidate. I guess that will intrigue me enough to go to the polls....

I wouldn't bet on that. Christie has some skeletons(which fwiu is why he didn't run). Also, Mitt can't pick another northeast moderate imo. The base already doesn't trust him.

[shally]

I'm still in shock that Mitt is the best thing the GOP can push forward against Obama. My favorite of the crap shoot was Christie but he pulled out and looks to be Mitt's VP canidate. I guess that will intrigue me enough to go to the polls....

I wouldn't bet on that. Christie has some skeletons(which fwiu is why he didn't run). Also, Mitt can't pick another northeast moderate imo. The base already doesn't trust him.

best case for the GOP may be to distance themselves from the ticket, focus on the House and Senate and make Obama a lame duck from day 1 of his second term

traditionally little of substance usually gets done after the first 6 months of the second term of Presidents.. I can not see Obama pushing any major pieces of legislation through his second term.. but the GOP wont be able to repeal Obamacare

more circling the bowl for 4 more years

[akhhorus]

best case for the GOP may be to distance themselves from the ticket, focus on the House and Senate and make Obama a lame duck from day 1 of his second term

traditionally little of substance usually gets done after the first 6 months of the second term of Presidents.. I can not see Obama pushing any major pieces of legislation through his second term.. but the GOP wont be able to repeal Obamacare

more circling the bowl for 4 more years

Its going to be hard to maintain the House advantage almost regardless of the Prez results. Especially with Congress' approval rating hovering around "herpes" levels. We'll take the senate(narrowly), but I think that the McConnell strategy of total obstruction will be very hard to maintain until the 2014 elections(or it will cost us control of both houses).

[shally]

Its going to be hard to maintain the House advantage almost regardless of the Prez results. Especially with Congress' approval rating hovering around "herpes" levels. We'll take the senate(narrowly), but I think that the McConnell strategy of total obstruction will be very hard to maintain until the 2014 elections(or it will cost us control of both houses).

true.. but it is interesting that most districts like their "own" Rep, while trashing Congress as a whole

i still think there is enough repugnance at the entire political spectrum that we have divided government for at least another 2-4 years.. this is especially true of Romney is the nominee because he wont run a scorched earth campaign that will turn a lot of people off.. what we will have in the general election is 2 "bloodless" technocrat candidates-- on from the center/left and one from the center/right.. tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber, depending upon your preference.. i dont think there is going to be a lot of passion in this election.. people are just worn down by the economy, war, and politics in general.. turnout will be the lowest in a long time..

[akhhorus]

true.. but it is interesting that most districts like their "own" Rep, while trashing Congress as a whole

i still think there is enough repugnance at the entire political spectrum that we have divided government for at least another 2-4 years.. this is especially true of Romney is the nominee because he wont run a scorched earth campaign that will turn a lot of people off.. what we will have in the general election is 2 "bloodless" technocrat candidates-- on from the center/left and one from the center/right.. tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber, depending upon your preference.. i dont think there is going to be a lot of passion in this election.. people are just worn down by the economy, war, and politics in general.. turnout will be the lowest in a long time..

Perhaps, but I think its the passion which has led to obstruction. Subtract that and they'll cut deals since it will be okay to do so.

[akhhorus]

Perry out, endorsing Newt. Has there been a bigger flop as a primary candidate then Perry?

[RedskinsDave]

Perry out, endorsing Newt. Has there been a bigger flop as a primary candidate then Perry?

At least three but I can only think of two.

Endorsing Newt? These morons really have zero concept of winning.

[Keino]

At least three but I can only think of two.

Endorsing Newt? These morons really have zero concept of winning.

Dave which GOP candidate are you supporting? I assume from this post it is Mitt....

[shally]

Perry out, endorsing Newt. Has there been a bigger flop as a primary candidate then Perry?

given the hooplah when he entered the race, and the skill he showed as a statewide candidate, it was VERY surprising how poorly he did

endorsing Newt was just the cherry on top

[shally]

Dave which GOP candidate are you supporting? I assume from this post it is Mitt....

i think i probably sit this one out and focus ALL of my aggravation and energy on the Redskins next year-- unless they roll again with Rex/Beck.. in that case, I am going to plan a lot of bike trips-- at least until they start closing down all the parks and highways due to lack of funds

[akhhorus]

given the hooplah when he entered the race, and the skill he showed as a statewide candidate, it was VERY surprising how poorly he did

endorsing Newt was just the cherry on top

I just wish I'd gotten you to commit on that Perry bet we were discussing lol.

[shally]

I just wish I'd gotten you to commit on that Perry bet we were discussing lol.

lol.....you are too damn smart for your own good-- and mine too...

[AustinSkin]

When Perry ran for re-election in Texas, he refused to debate his opponent, Bill White. Now that we have seen him in several national debates, I can easily see why he avoided debating his opponent.

[shally]

When Perry ran for re-election in Texas, he refused to debate his opponent, Bill White. Now that we have seen him in several national debates, I can easily see why he avoided debating his opponent.

real good at sticking his finger in peoples faces when debating them.. not much on substance..

[RedskinsDave]

Dave which GOP candidate are you supporting? I assume from this post it is Mitt....

Yes, Mitt. I liked Huntsman but he never got any traction. I like Mitt for a lot of the reasons he has to run away from in the primaries. He was a governor. He governed in a politically polarized state and did it well.

I am getting a kick out the fact that Mitt actually did something tangible with his life and it is being used against him. Too bad he wasn't a community organizer/part-time Senator before he ran for President.

[Keino]

Yes, Mitt. I liked Huntsman but he never got any traction. I like Mitt for a lot of the reasons he has to run away from in the primaries. He was a governor. He governed in a politically polarized state and did it well.

I am getting a kick out the fact that Mitt actually did something tangible with his life and it is being used against him. Too bad he wasn't a community organizer/part-time Senator before he ran for President.

I thought after Huntsman did well in New Hampshire, he would start to to pick-up some steam. He seemed like a guy who actually made some sense, which is probably why he lost traction when the trail went south of the mason-dixon line.

Romney, for all the reasons you mentioned scared me in 2008 in terms of being able to give Obama a run for his money, and he scares me now. Sure he has some hurdles to overcome with respect to his healthcare plan and perceived flip-flopping. I think Obama would mop the floor with the rest of the remaining field, but I could see Romney appealing to moderates on both sides of the aisle.

[fent]

When Perry ran for re-election in Texas, he refused to debate his opponent, Bill White. Now that we have seen him in several national debates, I can easily see why he avoided debating his opponent.

Between that and his complete distaste for anything other than the title (he hates policy work), it's not really surprising that he flamed out like he did.

[akhhorus]

I thought after Huntsman did well in New Hampshire, he would start to to pick-up some steam. He seemed like a guy who actually made some sense, which is probably why he lost traction when the trail went south of the mason-dixon line.

Romney, for all the reasons you mentioned scared me in 2008 in terms of being able to give Obama a run for his money, and he scares me now. Sure he has some hurdles to overcome with respect to his healthcare plan and perceived flip-flopping. I think Obama would mop the floor with the rest of the remaining field, but I could see Romney appealing to moderates on both sides of the aisle.

In order for Romney to do that, he's going to have to move back to the middle after moving to the right. If the economy goes back into the crapper, Romney could do very well against Obama--if he doesn't have any major gaffes and if there's no dirt in Romney's tax returns(which is doubtful at best). If the economy picks up through the spring/summer, Romney's pitch falls flat.

[RedskinsDave]

In order for Romney to do that, he's going to have to move back to the middle after moving to the right. If the economy goes back into the crapper, Romney could do very well against Obama--if he doesn't have any major gaffes and if there's no dirt in Romney's tax returns(which is doubtful at best). If the economy picks up through the spring/summer, Romney's pitch falls flat.

The fun part is going to be watching the moronic metrics people will use as evidence for an upswing. I can't wait to hear that "Hispanic lesbian factory workers in swing states saw and 4% increase in hiring last month."

[akhhorus]

The fun part is going to be watching the moronic metrics people will use as evidence for an upswing. I can't wait to hear that "Hispanic lesbian factory workers in swing states saw and 4% increase in hiring last month."

For our purposes, there's only three that matters: growth, initial unemployment claims and the overall rate. I think Charlie Cook might be right that the unemployment rate determines all: if its close to 8%, Obama wins. If its close to 9%, Romney wins.

All bets are off if the WSJ story about Romney sheltering money in the Caymans is correct.

[shally]

I thought after Huntsman did well in New Hampshire, he would start to to pick-up some steam. He seemed like a guy who actually made some sense, which is probably why he lost traction when the trail went south of the mason-dixon line.

Romney, for all the reasons you mentioned scared me in 2008 in terms of being able to give Obama a run for his money, and he scares me now. Sure he has some hurdles to overcome with respect to his healthcare plan and perceived flip-flopping. I think Obama would mop the floor with the rest of the remaining field, but I could see Romney appealing to moderates on both sides of the aisle.

i think Romney is likely to be a credible alternative for moderate voters who dont like Obama, but want to stay a Centrist policy..or move slightly to the right without risking the full Conservative Agenda

[shally]

For our purposes, there's only three that matters: growth, initial unemployment claims and the overall rate. I think Charlie Cook might be right that the unemployment rate determines all: if its close to 8%, Obama wins. If its close to 9%, Romney wins.

All bets are off if the WSJ story about Romney sheltering money in the Caymans is correct.

i think it is all about PERCEPTION not stats.. the various media slant the figures to make one side or the other look better

most polls show the American public generally believing that we are on the wrong track.. if that holds up, Obama is toast

in the first debate, Romney has to pass the "Presidential" threshhold.. if he does, then it becomes a plebiscite on whether people want to give Obama another 4 years.. the policy details dont matter very much at this point
because the public understands that politicians will say one thing, and then do another as it suits them.. it is a matter of confidence, as long as Romney appears to be a credible alternative

[akhhorus]

i think it is all about PERCEPTION not stats.. the various media slant the figures to make one side or the other look better

most polls show the American public generally believing that we are on the wrong track.. if that holds up, Obama is toast

in the first debate, Romney has to pass the "Presidential" threshhold.. if he does, then it becomes a plebiscite on whether people want to give Obama another 4 years.. the policy details dont matter very much at this point
because the public understands that politicians will say one thing, and then do another as it suits them.. it is a matter of confidence, as long as Romney appears to be a credible alternative

If thats the case, he needs to do MUCH better then his response to being asked about his tax returns. The crowd f*cking booed his response last night.

[shally]

If thats the case, he needs to do MUCH better then his response to being asked about his tax returns. The crowd f*cking booed his response last night.

was that in South Cracky-lackia ??? they were going to boo anything

he will release his returns eventually and as long as there isnt anything illegal people will shrug.. after all he is a top 1percenter and people expect that.. didnt hurt Kerry because he was perceived as an elite anyway...

it is about consumer confidence... as Bill famously said, it's the economy, stupid..

[akhhorus]

was that in South Cracky-lackia ??? they were going to boo anything

Then just watch the answer. It was trainwreck.

he will release his returns eventually and as long as there isnt anything illegal people will shrug.. after all he is a top 1percenter and people expect that.. didnt hurt Kerry because he was perceived as an elite anyway...

WSJ reports that he's got 5-25 million in an IRA in the cayman islands to avoid taxes on it. And Kerry was hurt by that perception.

it is about consumer confidence... as Bill famously said, it's the economy, stupid..

Its more then that. Former hedge fund managers worth 250 million struggle to relate with people hurting for jobs(and Romney's not charismatic/smart enough to pull it off), and the DNC/OFA/CREP will be sure to remind people of that lol.

[shally]

Then just watch the answer. It was trainwreck.



WSJ reports that he's got 5-25 million in an IRA in the cayman islands to avoid taxes on it. And Kerry was hurt by that perception.



Its more then that. Former hedge fund managers worth 250 million struggle to relate with people hurting for jobs(and Romney's not charismatic/smart enough to pull it off), and the DNC/OFA/CREP will be sure to remind people of that lol.


of course, of course... it is all relative.. Obama has gone from ward instigator to pretty well off.. as long as it fits in the "legal" column it wont hurt Romney even as much as the Bain business.. people expect our Pols to be treated like royalty.. they are ALL crooks

in the end, this is going to come down to a referendum on Obama.. he doesnt want to run on his record, but folks see through it. if he can convince voters to stay the course, he wins.. it isnt about Romney after the first debate

[akhhorus]

of course, of course... it is all relative.. Obama has gone from ward instigator to pretty well off.. as long as it fits in the "legal" column it wont hurt Romney even as much as the Bain business.. people expect our Pols to be treated like royalty.. they are ALL crooks

Bain's business is too vague to hurt Romney unless there's correspondence. But hiding money in the Caymans isn't good. Especially when Romney's economic platform is all about re-deregulating the Big Banks/Wall Street(which isn't popular anyways).

in the end, this is going to come down to a referendum on Obama.. he doesnt want to run on his record, but folks see through it. if he can convince voters to stay the course, he wins.. it isnt about Romney after the first debate

Yes and no. If Romney(or Newt) want to run a campaign bashing Obama without offering plans that are substantive(and get bipartisan/independent support, and I don't mean Lieberman lol), then its just a re-run of 2004.

[shally]

Bain's business is too vague to hurt Romney unless there's correspondence. But hiding money in the Caymans isn't good. Especially when Romney's economic platform is all about re-deregulating the Big Banks/Wall Street(which isn't popular anyways).



Yes and no. If Romney(or Newt) want to run a campaign bashing Obama without offering plans that are substantive(and get bipartisan/independent support, and I don't mean Lieberman lol), then its just a re-run of 2004.

again, if there isnt anything criminal, just distasteful, then this election is about Obama, and nothing else

[akhhorus]

again, if there isnt anything criminal, just distasteful, then this election is about Obama, and nothing else

This tax issue is one of the reasons Romney's support in SC(and nationally) is collapsing apparently. The only reason he's refusing to release it is because the release would be worse then this imo. If GOP voters are turned off by this, suburban indy voters will be also.

[AustinSkin]

Did anyone see Colbert this morning on "Morning Joe". He was freakin' hilarious. He had Scarborough crying with laughter.

[RedskinsDave]

Did anyone see Colbert this morning on "Morning Joe". He was freakin' hilarious. He had Scarborough crying with laughter.

The attention Colbert gets makes me weep for America.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The attention Colbert gets makes me weep for America.

Dude, he's hilarious. Last week he was using his super PAC to run attack ads against himself just to prove his super pac was truly independent lol

[RedskinsDave]

Dude, he's hilarious. Last week he was using his super PAC to run attack ads against himself just to prove his super pac was truly independent lol

And its sad. The reason we have the clowns in office and the ones running is because the whole damn thing is a joke.

[Keino]

I wish that they would ban the practice of applause and standing ovations for the SOTU. The number of interruptions makes it an essentially un-watchable event that should take about 1/2 hour that becomes a 2 hour speech.

I wanted to make it a drinking game, but I wanted to live through the night.

[RedskinsDave]

Its so contrived. The whole thing is a bunch of campaign promises that no one has to live up to and the rest is a pep rally.

[CNYSkinFan]

And its sad. The reason we have the clowns in office and the ones running is because the whole damn thing is a joke.
but again Colbert is satire, he is using humor to show how ridiculous our campaign finance system is.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Obama is going to be hard to beat if this continues:

The nation’s unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month, to 8.3 percent, its lowest level in three years, the Labor Department reported Friday, with widespread hiring across the economy. The number of jobs grew by 243,000.

The Labor Department recorded gains in many parts of the economy. The manufacturing industry added 50,000 jobs; the leisure and hospitality businesses added 44,000; and the health care industry added 30,000.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-243k-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-83percent/2012/02/03/gIQAhV3mmQ_story.html?hpid=z2

[RedskinsDave]

Seriously, if he gets back to where he started and only dropped a few trillion dollars, welp, pencil him in for four years of unabashed leftism.

[akhhorus]

Seriously, if he gets back to where he started and only dropped a few trillion dollars, welp, pencil him in for four years of unabashed leftism.

Barring some massive change, the Senate should flip in 2012 giving us a narrow majority until 2014. Even if there's 400k jobs added a month, I don't think that will change. Anything Obama wants to pass will have to pass through the constipated organ of governance.

As for this jobs report, talk to me in the summer. I think 538 is 1000% right that a 150k jobs added average probably means Obama wins in a walk. Especially against Romney, who's entire pitch is based on "Obama doesn't know the economy, I do" premise.

[justinskins]

Romney was always a weak candidate but there is no way he wins now.

[akhhorus]

Romney was always a weak candidate but there is no way he wins now.

He needs a sustained economic downturn or a scandal which directly tarnishes Obama's character. Newt scuffed him up too much imo.

[RedskinsDave]

I guess America is going to keep ignoring how horrible a leader this clown is. He really is the Teflon Don of bad politicians. I can't wait to see what kind of leftist crap gets shoved down our throats when he doesn't have a future election to worry about. It's going to be unprecedented. I hope the GOP can stop him.

[shally]

Barring some massive change, the Senate should flip in 2012 giving us a narrow majority until 2014. Even if there's 400k jobs added a month, I don't think that will change. Anything Obama wants to pass will have to pass through the constipated organ of governance.

As for this jobs report, talk to me in the summer. I think 538 is 1000% right that a 150k jobs added average probably means Obama wins in a walk. Especially against Romney, who's entire pitch is based on "Obama doesn't know the economy, I do" premise.

it will come down to turnout.. last election, Obama had young voters and independents in his pocket.. chances are he wont have the kind of evangelical fervor among his base.. also, Romney just isnt scary the way Newt would be..

this is going to come down to how the middle 30% of voters see Obama as a president.. as long as Romney comes off as presidential in the debates, this will be an up/down vote on Obama.. the country is in a sour mood and no matter what the numbers, people have to have some confidence that Obama can get the job done, or the economy can recover in spite of him

he isnt going to have any kind of mandate to get large new plans through congress. the second term, if he has one, will be about consolidating the pieces he got through in his first term.. people dont see any impact of Obamacare.. there will be no more stimulus packages.. the wars are being wound down.. barring something dramatic happening, this is about marching in place for another 4 years

either way, there will be no mandate for doing anything further

[akhhorus]

it will come down to turnout.. last election, Obama had young voters and independents in his pocket.. chances are he wont have the kind of evangelical fervor among his base.. also, Romney just isnt scary the way Newt would be..

this is going to come down to how the middle 30% of voters see Obama as a president.. as long as Romney comes off as presidential in the debates, this will be an up/down vote on Obama.. the country is in a sour mood and no matter what the numbers, people have to have some confidence that Obama can get the job done, or the economy can recover in spite of him

Thats why the GOP turnout for primaries is an important number to watch. Especially independent turnout in the GOP primaries.

As for Romney v Obama: Mitt needs more then "I don't like Obama" to win. That didn't work for Kerry and Bush wasn't that popular in 2004(his average approval rating in 2004 was 46%). Romney needs a retail political issue and hammer away on Obama with(and no, "the economy" isn't that). He should tack centrist on the big banks and just hammer away on that imo.

he isnt going to have any kind of mandate to get large new plans through congress. the second term, if he has one, will be about consolidating the pieces he got through in his first term.. people dont see any impact of Obamacare.. there will be no more stimulus packages.. the wars are being wound down.. barring something dramatic happening, this is about marching in place for another 4 years

either way, there will be no mandate for doing anything further

I still disagree with you on this. If Obama is re-elected, the total obstruction will end. They'll still block anything way out there until 2014, but they aren't going to continue the tradition of blanket holds on everything(well, Lee, Paul and DeMint might but they'll be broken with bipartisan support). Nothing big will get passed unless its a compromise between McConnell, Boehner and Obama.

[justinskins]

it will come down to turnout.. last election, Obama had young voters and independents in his pocket.. chances are he wont have the kind of evangelical fervor among his base.. also, Romney just isnt scary the way Newt would be..

this is going to come down to how the middle 30% of voters see Obama as a president.. as long as Romney comes off as presidential in the debates, this will be an up/down vote on Obama.. the country is in a sour mood and no matter what the numbers, people have to have some confidence that Obama can get the job done, or the economy can recover in spite of him

he isnt going to have any kind of mandate to get large new plans through congress. the second term, if he has one, will be about consolidating the pieces he got through in his first term.. people dont see any impact of Obamacare.. there will be no more stimulus packages.. the wars are being wound down.. barring something dramatic happening, this is about marching in place for another 4 years

either way, there will be no mandate for doing anything further

Great post. For me two things are decisive:
(1) Everyone knows Romney will say anything to become President. The open question is what he would actually do in the White House once he got there. Conservatives I've talked to aren't even convinced that Romney would work to reverse Obamacare. There won't be a lot of excitement for him.
(2) Obama is the incumbent, and home-field advantage is worth 3 points. At this point, the economy is slowly coming back to life. Both sides will argue until they are blue in the face about whether the recovery is because of the President's policies or in spite of them. If the pace continues, Obama wins that argument by default. But even if things slow down again, Romney has to convince people that he has a better approach. I don't see how he can do that given that no one really knows what his approach would be if he were elected.

[akhhorus]

If the pace continues, Obama wins that argument by default. But even if things slow down again, Romney has to convince people that he has a better approach. I don't see how he can do that given that no one really knows what his approach would be if he were elected.

The biggest lesson in American politics from the Dubya years: a bad substantial plan beats no substantial plan every time.

[shally]

Thats why the GOP turnout for primaries is an important number to watch. Especially independent turnout in the GOP primaries.

As for Romney v Obama: Mitt needs more then "I don't like Obama" to win. That didn't work for Kerry and Bush wasn't that popular in 2004(his average approval rating in 2004 was 46%). Romney needs a retail political issue and hammer away on Obama with(and no, "the economy" isn't that). He should tack centrist on the big banks and just hammer away on that imo.



I still disagree with you on this. If Obama is re-elected, the total obstruction will end. They'll still block anything way out there until 2014, but they aren't going to continue the tradition of blanket holds on everything(well, Lee, Paul and DeMint might but they'll be broken with bipartisan support). Nothing big will get passed unless its a compromise between McConnell, Boehner and Obama.

there is no way Obama gets any kind of mandate to do anything substantial.. this will be about further incremental change..

there will continue to be obstruction because there is no real penalty for playing rope-a-dope in congress.. and because there will be divided government for the next 4 years, no matter who wins the white house

besides, what is he going to recommend that has ANY chance of getting through Congress ??

[akhhorus]

there is no way Obama gets any kind of mandate to do anything substantial.. this will be about further incremental change..


He's already gotten two big changes in which won't go away if he's re-elected.

there will continue to be obstruction because there is no real penalty for playing rope-a-dope in congress.. and because there will be divided government for the next 4 years, no matter who wins the white house

besides, what is he going to recommend that has ANY chance of getting through Congress ??

I doubt that. There wasn't enough stomach for a fight on the debt ceiling, which has been a goal for the movement conservatives for 30 years. There wasn't even stomach for tying the debt ceiling vote to repealing Obamacare(which they promised to do). I seriously doubt there's stomach to block(sans realistic negotiations) across the board if Obama is re-elected--especially if the economy has "rebounded." 2014 isn't that far away.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Darn. It was only a matter of time before Rick Santorum said something insane. I was hoping he could bite his lip until the general election. 'Twas too much to ask lol.

These dellusions about John F. Kennedy hating Religious people coupled with his extremist beliefs about contraception/evolution will doom him. Oh well.

Bring on Romney.

[Death_Venom]

Darn. It was only a matter of time before Rick Santorum said something insane. I was hoping he could bite his lip until the general election. 'Twas too much to ask lol.

These dellusions about John F. Kennedy hating Religious people coupled with his extremist beliefs about contraception/evolution will doom him. Oh well.

Bring on Romney.

Could not be less excited at the mention of Romney.......Obama will slaughter the flip-flopper...........

[shally]

He's already gotten two big changes in which won't go away if he's re-elected.



I doubt that. There wasn't enough stomach for a fight on the debt ceiling, which has been a goal for the movement conservatives for 30 years. There wasn't even stomach for tying the debt ceiling vote to repealing Obamacare(which they promised to do). I seriously doubt there's stomach to block(sans realistic negotiations) across the board if Obama is re-elected--especially if the economy has "rebounded." 2014 isn't that far away.

big difference between shutting down the government by refusing to work on the debt ceiling, as opposed to blocking new federal programs..

[shally]

Could not be less excited at the mention of Romney.......Obama will slaughter the flip-flopper...........

not if gas is $5.00 a gallon.. all bets off at that point

[akhhorus]

big difference between shutting down the government by refusing to work on the debt ceiling, as opposed to blocking new federal programs..

They haven't defunded Obamacare or Dodd frank. And most of the funding wasn't built into the budget...

not if gas is $5.00 a gallon.. all bets off at that point

There actually isn't much correlation between gas prices and voting. And with the Saudis saying that they want oil at 100 per barrel in the summer, i doubt that they would stay that high for long.

[RedskinsDave]

Also the same mainstream media morons who acted like Bush controlled gas prices suddenly end their high gas reporting with "there's little the president can do to help gas prices". I literally laughed when I heard that.

[Death_Venom]

Also the same mainstream media morons who acted like Bush controlled gas prices suddenly end their high gas reporting with "there's little the president can do to help gas prices". I literally laughed when I heard that.

I think a an effective well thought Energy Policy could impact the gas prices....

[shally]

I think a an effective well thought Energy Policy could impact the gas prices....
nope.. only thing would be more refineries and more pipeline capacity.. all the rest is marching in place

actually what would help a lot, would be to convert our entire fleet of commercial vehicles to natual gas (pickens concept)...

[RedskinsDave]

Nice job by President POS to ignore the question about his million dollar donor, the king of morons Bill Maher using far worse words to describe women than the demonized Limbaugh used. The utter effing hypocrisy over that is killing me. Never mind the fact that only an arrogant clown like Obama would call his first press conference of the year on the GOP's Super Tuesday.

I also love how this same guy who was all bluster about Iran, Afghanistan and Gitmo while on the campaign trail suddenly thinks wannabe presidents should be more reserved in their comments about Iran. It's all pretty funny. Too bad we're going to be stuck with Hollywood Barry for another term.

[Ibleedburgundy]

nope.. only thing would be more refineries and more pipeline capacity...

And that would take upwards of a decade to accomplish.

The funny thing is, in the short term the most profound effect we could have on increased gas prices would be to bomb Iran.

[akhhorus]

nope.. only thing would be more refineries and more pipeline capacity.. all the rest is marching in place

actually what would help a lot, would be to convert our entire fleet of commercial vehicles to natual gas (pickens concept)...

GM/ford are releasing duel use vehicles soon, they can run on Nat gas or gas..but the price of nat gas would be too high if a large amount of vehicles use it.

[RedskinsDave]

GM/ford are releasing duel use vehicles soon, they can run on Nat gas or gas..but the price of nat gas would be too high if a large amount of vehicles use it.

Huh?

[akhhorus]

Huh?

Right now, Natural gas is about the same price-mile for mile-as regular gas. The price will shoot up when cars start using it obviously. The only advantage of nat gas use is that we control a lot of the supply.

[RedskinsDave]

More people will buy it so the price will go up? That doesn't make any sense.

[akhhorus]

More people will buy it so the price will go up? That doesn't make any sense.

Supply/demand. We can't ramp up natural gas production to suddenly take a bite out of the 9 million gallons of gas used a day in the US without seeing a major jump in price. Production is running pretty high as is(which is why fracking is popular).

[Keino]

More people will buy it so the price will go up? That doesn't make any sense.

Demand increases, Supply decreases, thus prices go up.

[RedskinsDave]

Thank you Mr. smith and Mr. Keynes. People aren't buying cars with any prospect that they will pay more than they currently do for gas. People are rapidly changing from oil to gas for their home heat and the prices haven't shot up.

[akhhorus]

Thank you Mr. smith and Mr. Keynes. People aren't buying cars with any prospect that they will pay more than they currently do for gas. People are rapidly changing from oil to gas for their home heat and the prices haven't shot up.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm

Residential nat gas use(in cubic feet):
2006: 4,368,466
2007: 4,722,358
2008: 4,892,277
2009: 4,778,907
2010: 4,787,320
2011: 4,734,604

Only 32000 cubic feet used for vehicles in 2011. Jump that up to 3 million a year and prices will leap.

[RedskinsDave]

Maybe the car makers are dumb enough to make a car that doesn't make fiscal sense but people aren't buying dual use cars with the knowledge it will cost more. The current supply would have to increase especially since so many buses and fleet vehicles already use NG.

[akhhorus]

Maybe the car makers are dumb enough to make a car that doesn't make fiscal sense but people aren't buying dual use cars with the knowledge it will cost more.

It would have to be a large amount of sales of those cars+nat gas pumps to even make a noticeable difference. I don't see that happening within 3-5 years. It makes fiscal sense as long as use of nat gas engines doesn't surpass how much production can be increased.

The current supply would have to increase especially since so many buses and fleet vehicles already use NG.

Thats the 32k cubic feet figure. Switching over 18 wheelers to nat gas probably would be a good step that the market could absorb.

[shally]

It would have to be a large amount of sales of those cars+nat gas pumps to even make a noticeable difference. I don't see that happening within 3-5 years. It makes fiscal sense as long as use of nat gas engines doesn't surpass how much production can be increased.



Thats the 32k cubic feet figure. Switching over 18 wheelers to nat gas probably would be a good step that the market could absorb.

...as has been suggested by Pickens.. that makes so much sense it would seem to be a no brainer.. plus, we control the supply of gas and arent even scratching the surface of what we have available in this country.. there are so many capped wells in louisiana and texas, it is pathetic

[akhhorus]

...as has been suggested by Pickens.. that makes so much sense it would seem to be a no brainer.. plus, we control the supply of gas and arent even scratching the surface of what we have available in this country.. there are so many capped wells in louisiana and texas, it is pathetic

Pickens should start buying up gas stations or paying for nat gas pumps around the country. Thats the biggest barrier.

[Keino]

Maybe the car makers are dumb enough to make a car that doesn't make fiscal sense but people aren't buying dual use cars with the knowledge it will cost more. The current supply would have to increase especially since so many buses and fleet vehicles already use NG.

Eventually the pricing would level off as supply increased to meet the increase in demand, but there would be a short-term spike unless such a change is phased in over time or Natural gas providers amped up production in anticipation of such a change in the market, but would run the risk of driving prices down to the point of unprofitability if they miscalculated the timing of amping up production. I know nothing about the NG industry's ability to produce more, just speaking in terms of Supply and Demand.

[shally]

Eventually the pricing would level off as supply increased to meet the increase in demand, but there would be a short-term spike unless such a change is phased in over time or Natural gas providers amped up production in anticipation of such a change in the market, but would run the risk of driving prices down to the point of unprofitability if they miscalculated the timing of amping up production. I know nothing about the NG industry's ability to produce more, just speaking in terms of Supply and Demand.

again.. i know personally of people who have gas wells on their property in texas and louisiana that are capped and ready to go.. right now there simply isnt enough demand to encourage those wells being used.. the price will stay level because there is so much ready to use potential out there

[Keino]

again.. i know personally of people who have gas wells on their property in texas and louisiana that are capped and ready to go.. right now there simply isnt enough demand to encourage those wells being used.. the price will stay level because there is so much ready to use potential out there

Personally I am open to anything that moves this country away from foreign dependence so long as the long-term goal is to shift to renewable sources of energy. I am all for a Natural Gas phase-in. I am all for the automakers coming up with more alternative fuel supplied vehicles and I would love for our country's automakers to be on the cutting edge of these newer technologies. I would love to consider an American car for my next vehicle purchase that makes more sense than the Honda Accord for my situation (Mid-sized vehicle large enough for a family car, but fuel effecient and made for 87 octane gas).

I cannot think of another industry in which the price of the product doubles over the course of a decade and we just continue to collectively pay it.

[akhhorus]

again.. i know personally of people who have gas wells on their property in texas and louisiana that are capped and ready to go.. right now there simply isnt enough demand to encourage those wells being used.. the price will stay level because there is so much ready to use potential out there

There might be hundreds of wells ready to be tapped but even 3 million cubic feet of nat gas a day(which would be about 1/6 of daily gas use) would be nearly 1/8 of current production. They might be able to ramp it up eventually, but the price of nat gas would soar in the short/medium term. Even if we stopped exporting nat gas to cover the additional demand, price would rise.

[justinskins]

again.. i know personally of people who have gas wells on their property in texas and louisiana that are capped and ready to go.. right now there simply isnt enough demand to encourage those wells being used.. the price will stay level because there is so much ready to use potential out there

It's hard to believe demand for natural gas is so inelastic that setting a lower price would not lead to additional use. The reason those wells aren't being tapped is because they are not cost-effective at the current price. At a higher price, they would be tapped.

From a pure cost per unit energy analysis, natural gas in cars makes sense. Two problems:
1) Natural gas is less efficient than gasoline in terms of energy per volume. It takes about 4-6 gallons of compressed natural gas to provide the equivalent energy of one gallon of gasoline, depending on the pressure at which it is stored. Even with larger tanks, that means much more frequent trips to the pump.
2) Home heating bills would increase substantially if natural gas becomes a standard fuel for personal automobiles. I'm not sure that will be a popular outcome.

Ultimately, natural gas in cars will happen if it makes market sense. From a public policy perspective, it makes more sense to invest in the long-term development of new technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

makes me sick that a profession that people pass off as nobile can become a mud slinging free for all with people saying anything to win an election! the whole mess makes me sick!

[justinskins]

makes me sick that a profession that people pass off as nobile can become a mud slinging free for all with people saying anything to win an election! the whole mess makes me sick!

Does anyone really think politics is a noble profession???

[Death_Venom]

Does anyone really think politics is a noble profession???

The prerequisites are that you must be a liar, a cheat & a crook.

[justinskins]

The prerequisites are that you must be a liar, a cheat & a crook.

Let's be fair. You only need to be a liar and a cheat. Being a crook just gives you an extra edge.

[CNYSkinFan]

Does anyone really think politics is a noble profession???
Ok let me step in here. While I get all the clamor and outrage on politicas on state and national levels, village and local town boards are still pretty honorable. Many times on school boards for interest they arent even paid, or paid so little it does not pay gas to attend meetings.

There is honor in service and elected office is service. If we could take the money out of politics I think that honor could return.

[RedskinsDave]

Ok let me step in here. While I get all the clamor and outrage on politicas on state and national levels, village and local town boards are still pretty honorable. Many times on school boards for interest they arent even paid, or paid so little it does not pay gas to attend meetings.

There is honor in service and elected office is service. If we could take the money out of politics I think that honor could return.

Okay then its liars, cheat and busybodies.

[CNYSkinFan]

Okay then its liars, cheat and busybodies.
lol ok there ya go

[justinskins]

Ok let me step in here. While I get all the clamor and outrage on politicas on state and national levels, village and local town boards are still pretty honorable. Many times on school boards for interest they arent even paid, or paid so little it does not pay gas to attend meetings.

There is honor in service and elected office is service. If we could take the money out of politics I think that honor could return.

Let's be honest: plenty of the people involved in politics are in pursuit of one thing above all else, and that is power. Power along with all its perquisites. They wrap themselves up in the language of service, but we know what they really want.

As for local politics: Sometimes it is honorable. I suppose there are honest dog-catchers in small New England villages. Often, local government is even more corrupt and interest-bound than Washington. Local politicians also run campaigns and it's very easy for prominent businesses to get whatever they want out of cities and towns.