posted
When I heard Perry I laughed. I laughed again this morning when I heard that he said it would help him since people could relate with him and that it "makes him seem more human."
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch. Not a good debater. Sad that a bad hiccup like that impacts his campaign status. Glad it does, however.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I don't. I think it's a deeply stupid way to select Presidents for a nation as large and complicated as ours, to have the colors of ties and the kind of cheesesteak one likes even be within a cannon shot of a stone's throw of relevance even for the briefest moment.
More one of those 'there's something worthwhile, somewhere, in even the most awful things sometimes.'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a good move for Romney to attempt to bailout Perry. Even if his suggestion was not what Perry was looking for, it demonstrates he is not absolutely cut-throat on becoming president.
I'm not very happy about him having such a great shot at becoming president, but his discipline this year has been almost perfect. Santorum deserves similar kudos. I don't think this is his year, but if he continues to work, I think he will put together a very powerful campaign maybe next cycle.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It was a good move for Romney to attempt to bailout Perry. Even if his suggestion was not what Perry was looking for, it demonstrates he is not absolutely cut-throat on becoming president.
Or it demonstrates that he knows that Perry just nuked his own campaign, and now has the opportunity to look magnanimous in victory. You'll notice that Perry's other opponents (Cain, Bachmann, etc) have given similarly "sympathetic" statements in the wake of Perry's gaffe.
In other words, there comes a point when a candidate is so obviously dead in the water that it becomes politically beneficial for his opponents to say nice things about him. Perry jumped that boundary and then some, last night. He's no longer a candidate for president. He's an object of pity for the candidates who are left.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk: Perhaps, but Romney made his move in that moment, not after the debate. It appears more genuine when done in that manner.
Romney could have kept silent like the other candidates. Well, Ron Paul basically said, "I dream every night of killing all the government agencies, what three were you thinking of sissy?"
Romney could certainly be feigning a charitable nature, but being able to fake it is still counted to one's benefit more so than those who keep silent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's an object of pity for the candidates who are left.
He's an object of pity with a big bank account, and don't think they don't all know that. That money has to go somewhere, and I'm pretty sure campaign finance law prohibits it from going directly back into his gubernatorial campaign fund.
That means he'll either be giving it away, or giving it all to his re-election PAC, if it exists.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
My grandmother consistently voted for President solely by whom she thought was the most handsome. Seriously. That was her only consideration. (She particularly loved Clinton, and also I think Reagan.)
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has always surprised me that more politicians are not good looking. There are many incredibly ugly, extremely successful politicians world-wide.
I wonder whether most people actually vote the opposite to your grandmother - they see really, really amazingly good looking people as likely to be dim, or untrustworthy, (or just wonder whether there is more to life).
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
My grandmother consistently voted for President solely by whom she thought was the most handsome. Seriously. That was her only consideration. (She particularly loved Clinton, and also I think Reagan.)
It's no worse than people who vote for the guy who has a better sounding name.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder whether most people actually vote the opposite to your grandmother - they see really, really amazingly good looking people as likely to be dim, or untrustworthy, (or just wonder whether there is more to life).
I believe studies consistently show attractiveness correlates with the perception of competence. Good looking people are generally happier, better liked and more successful due in large part to how they are perceived.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe studies consistently show attractiveness correlates with the perception of competence. Good looking people are generally happier, better liked and more successful due in large part to how they are perceived.
That's the weird thing - that while this appears to be true in most areas of life, in politics it appears not to make the slightest bit of difference to success whether you are attractive or not.
Lyr - run for office in Spain. Both presidential (okay, they're really prime ministerial) candidates standing this week are middle aged beardies. In fact, apart from a height difference, they're almost identical.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's the weird thing - that while this appears to be true in most areas of life, in politics it appears not to make the slightest bit of difference to success whether you are attractive or not.
Well it's not the *only* factor, but it does actually matter in politics. I'm struggling to recall where I first read about it (Freakonomics?) but I know that it was specifically addressed with regards to candidates for political office.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would also introduce a strong bias into the pool of qualified candidates, as non-political advancement leads to possibilities of political advancement.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Most of it is just standard GOP talking points, but a couple things jumped out at me:
1. Santorum's response to who would be advising him in the White House boils down to (and he repeated it three times): I will only ever have people working for me that absolutely agree with me 100%. Well, nice to know he'll consider all sides of an issue before he calls the play.
2. Huntsman gets the shaft. I mean seriously, they only gave him three questions and on two of them they cut him off after 30 seconds. And one of those was on China, on which he is the expert out of the people on the stage! It's absolutely ridiculous what short shrift he is given.
He reaffirmed for me, by the way, that he by far my favorite GOP candidate.
In general there seems to be this view amongst the GOP candidates on foreign policy that American can simply snap its fingers and make happen whatever we want. Obama's failures are failures of will, rather than failures of political reality. It's an incredibly unnuanced view of the world that doesn't take into account that that other countries have their own agendas, and that we can't simply tell people what to do, no matter how much we might want to. It's very troubling.
Also, there's an overwhelming desire to send spies and other covert operatives into the Middle East to do all sorts of regime change and sabotage. I'm not against that in principle, but geez, their enthusiasm is cause for concern.
I enjoyed the Perry jokes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general there seems to be this view amongst the GOP candidates on foreign policy that American can simply snap its fingers and make happen whatever we want. Obama's failures are failures of will, rather than failures of political reality.
I sense a narrative convenient to the most obstructionist political entity in American history!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been watching the debates, but some friends invited us to come over and watch with them. It was nice to see differences of opinion about Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was, um, amused that most of them are assuming that Obama's sitting around the White House thinking, "Golly, Iran might get a nuclear weapon soon . . . too bad I lack the will to do anything."
Huntsman's answer where he pivoted to the 21st century and away from Iraq/AfPak blew me away. I really wouldn't mind him being Secretary of State after Clinton steps down, but I don't see it happening.
Was it Romney who kept repeating stuff about Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul II?
Fortunately, the kid woke up and wanted to go home about the same time everyone (except Ron Paul, mercifully) started defending waterboarding.
It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The email basically bluntly states that Bachmann, as a single digit candidate, will not be asked a lot of questions, and is basically irrelevant.
Justifiably, she's pretty pissed about that.
I understand where they are coming from with this. Frontrunners should get more focus and criticism because they are more likely to be the nominee...but isn't the whole point of a primary season, especially one this long with this many debate, to give every candidate a chance to fully flesh out his or her ideas and positions? Huntsman got a grand total of two minutes of air time in a 90 minute debate about his personal forte in policy. Why even allow him to be there? For all the secondary candidate, why even have them on the stage if all you're going to do is ask them one or two questions just for the sake of "fairness" and then focus all your attention on the top two or three.
Debates move polls as much as polls move debates. Maybe if other candidates had a chance to speak, they'd move higher in the polls, and thus become relevant.
Again, I get their point, and I might even agree with it if there were only a couple debates, but for the love of God, this was like the TENTH debate. In 12+ hours of debates, there isn't time to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak?
If they aren't going to be allowed to talk, they should end the charade and just invite the top three percentage people in the polls, and stop pretending this is really a debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't try to cram them all in every debate. I'd take 3-4 of them, and rotate them through a series of debates. We'd have to host more debates so that everybody got a chance to debate everybody at least once, but we'd get better dialogue.
posted
As a registered republican who hates NEOCONs, I am absolutely loving Huntsman and agree he got shafted on China. I wish the Mormons backed him instead of Romney.
quote:I understand where they are coming from with this. Frontrunners should get more focus and criticism because they are more likely to be the nominee...but isn't the whole point of a primary season, especially one this long with this many debate, to give every candidate a chance to fully flesh out his or her ideas and positions?
I am particularly perturbed that Paul only got 90 seconds. His fundraising and polling is second tier, and he should be given more time then Santorum and some other candidates. Plus, the republicans need non-intervention ideas injected back in the debates.
At least he reaffirmed that water-boarding is torture and torture is illegal. We need to hear that more.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least he reaffirmed that water-boarding is torture and torture is illegal. We need to hear that more.
I think that's one of those things that goes into the category of 'things you cannot say and still remain viable as a conservative candidate' but I could be wrong.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True but sad. Why the small government party thinks gross abuse of civil rights is ok is beyond me. However, that does not change the fact that he polls much higher and has raised much more money then Santorum. It is absolute manipulation that Santorum got 5 questions and Paul got 89 seconds.
posted
I wouldn't say "absolute manipulation." Paul is a crappy politician, no matter how much certain people like him.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's kind of a weird answer. "I don't agree with Obama...but I would have done most of the same things he did, though possibly for different reasons, but I don't know those reasons because I haven't seen the evidence."
And then he ends the whole thing by saying it's impossible to judge what Obama did because unless he has all the facts, it's impossible to know. Funny, that doesn't stop him from criticizing Obama on any number of other things, though in fairness, Cain has avoided foreign policy like Typhoid Mary at a kissing booth.
His final conclusion is funny. His basic criticism is that HE would have gauged the opposition movement, which leaves the impression that Obama didn't. When pressed, he clarifies that he doesn't know if Obama did or not, because he doesn't have the information.
One wonders if his foreign policy answers have as much to do with is falling poll numbers as his scandal. In other news Newt Gingrich is the current top contender for the Anybody But Romney sweepstakes. If you take Perry's and Cain's numbers and give them to Newt, he wins over Romney in a landslide.
I really wonder if Cain won't just drop out after he gets crushed in New Hampshire. The story would be so much more effective if (as he will) Romney wins New Hampshire and then Newt comes back to crush him in the next handful of states before Nevada. But that's unlikely to happen if Cain and Perry continue to split the vote.
It appears Gingrich won the game of hot potato. Whoever is the current favorite when the elections start has the best chance of beating Romney, and it looks like Gingrich is going to be that guy. I don't think we have enough time, or a likely candidate to turn to, to pass off Gingrich's support.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To take a detour away from the GOP for a moment, since this is an issue we'll be discussing more as the primaries fade away and the general looms, it's interesting to take a look at congressional elections and how they are shaping up. A key indicator of how an election season is going is fundraising. Commentators like to use it as a bellwether of enthusiasm to gauge the national mood (or at least the mood of donors and volunteers).
Fundraising has surged for congressional Democrats, and has dropped off a cliff for Republican freshman congressmen, many of whom were elected to traditionally Democratic leaning districts on the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment in 2010. Those seats were always going to be hard to defend en masse, especially with so many of them tracking so far to the Tea Party line that got them there. People like Scott Brown have been smart enough to tack to the left every now and then, knowing that just because they are pissed, Massachusetts isn't going to become a red state just because Brown is there.
A year out, these could be worrying signs for GOP freshmen, who need to raise staggering sums in a short amount of time on a weekly basis from a small pool of donors in order to be viable candidates every two years.
For all the GOP's talk of taking the Senate, this election might be shaping up as one where they have to fight just as hard to hold onto the House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
posted
Well, the fact that he sounds like a broken record not withstanding, the reason you ask people like Paul and Huntsman those questions is to force the other candidates to actually DEBATE them.
Otherwise it's an echo chamber.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
They don't even have to be recent lol, his positions don't change, and he speaks the truth. always.
Paul's best shot is Iowa. The Republican caucus process doesn't have viability requirements, nor a majority of attendees requirement to get the delegates from the precincts. It's just a plurality from the secret ballot. That said-- looking at the particulars of the polling data in Iowa--Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain are all higher than Paul as a second choice. I'd imagine that if the Cain supporters felt that Cain wouldn't get the most votes in their precinct (which has been becoming more likely), that they would vote for Gingrich before Paul. But the thing that might help Paul is the unfettered passion that his supporters have for him. That passion is particularly useful in a caucus.
Paul has no shot in New Hampshire.
As an aside, looking at the polling data, 23% of respondents in the New Hampshire poll said that the allegations of sexual harassment against Cain have made them more likely to support him. The question didn't ask if they appreciated his handling of the allegations, it was simply whether the allegations have made them more supportive.
posted
Vadon: If you don't believe the charges are true, then the allegations are an vicious attack on a candidate. If you felt some support for them, then standing up with them against the media slur machine could be a natural reaction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think child labor laws mean or do what he thinks they mean or do.
You have to appreciate, though the inherent subtext in what he's saying - that poor children can only achieve a strong work ethic by getting jobs as young kids, that they couldn't get that work ethic from their poor parents, of course, or as teenagers.
And come on Newt! Recent polls have you way out in the front, as shocking as that is to believe. All you really have to do is SHUT UP for 45 days and you might get to be the nominee!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash; they'd have pride in the schools. They'd begin the process of rising."
But in the meantime, all our unionized janitors who are living large and lucky, will have to find other jobs. What a solution!
posted
My dad is a school janitor. There's nothing luxurious about it, at least not at the school he works at.
And for that matter, it involves so much heavy lifting, you'd probably have to have to hire three kids to replace each janitor just to do the work. It also involves heavy machinery depending on the size of the school.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who thinks kids (i.e. under about 14) could realistically replace school janitors has very little experience with kids or janitorial work.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's totally possible he knows nothing about janitorial work. Hey, I also know nothing about janitorial work. I assume it involves mopping and cleaning toilets and other stuff like that, because I dimly remember seeing janitors doing that stuff when I went to school. I imagine there's probably more difficult stuff too.
Logistically I think you guys are being too hard on the idea. He says you should keep an adult as a "master janitor" (presumably to do all the difficult machinery stuff? And if there's more of that than I assume there is, keep two!)
But I mean, some janitorial work is just cleaning stuff, right? Is there some reason a twelve year old couldn't do that? Aside from it being illegal and exploitative, I mean.
I think it's a bad thing that it is illegal (and enforced!) for a kid to, say, have a lemonade stand, or mow lawns, or clean gutters, or wash cars, do other random labor. Paper route not so much, since so few people still get the paper that I think most routes nowadays are huge and require a car. Papers are dying, and rightfully so, but people still have lawns and cars and thirsts.
I'm not saying I think kids should work 20 hours a week doing backbreaking labor, but I know that I appreciated being able to work for other people to get money when I was a kid, because my parents were often too strapped to give me money to buy stuff I was interested in. I think that giving kids the opportunity to do stuff like that is a good thing. Frankly, that's what it looks like he is saying. It's just much more exciting to imagine that he's desirous of setting up American sweat shops.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newt's ability to convey the concept, "Do as I say, not as I do" is legendary. Seriously, the man's hypocrisy is this some sort of transcendent level of terrifying. When people say libertarians essentially believe, "Now that you've pulled me out of the water, lets pull up the rope" I think of Newt Gingrich. He is divorced several times, affairs being an open aspect of two instances, and tries to tell me about family values, as well as excusing his behavior under the guise of working too hard for his country.
He has said that politicians who took money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be tried in criminal court and locked up, nevermind he himself received over a million dollars in consulting fees, while simultaneously advising Republican law makers that they should support both organizations. Seriously, how could you make Newt Gingrich embody hypocrisy anymore than he does? I suppose the only way I can think of is if he said the world was over crowded and people should do something about it, whereupon he shoots somebody nearby in the head while simultaneously impregnating a prostitute.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that giving kids the opportunity to do stuff like that is a good thing. Frankly, that's what it looks like he is saying. It's just much more exciting to imagine that he's desirous of setting up American sweat shops.
His principles on encouraging the bootstrappiness of the nation's youth are just flat-out retarded, and the janitorial example is noteworthy only as an apt, self-contained demonstration of that.
TO get detailed on the matter, I think the most concise answer as to whether or not his kids-do-the-cleaning idea has any merit (or sanity) is summed up in this persuasive essay.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That persuasive essay also really nails the realistic appraisal of Paul's chances at the presidency, by the by.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oof. Some conservatives are tearing into Newt for taking a little more moderate stance on illegal immigration. To me the whole issue seems so absurd... the most common argument by far is essentially "We need to respect the rule of law, they are illegal immigrants, we should make them go home."
But good God our immigration laws are such a mess, I'd much rather simply make it much easier for immigrants to come here legally, so that the entire "Their first act in our country is to flout the law" line of reasoning evaporates, or fundamentally starts only applying to whatever small percentage of immigrants we legitimately don't want here for better reasons than just "They didn't win the lottery."
Humbug. There's your dose of "Don't forget Dan's actually a crazy anarcho-capitalist libertarian, not a crazy social conservative republican." Enjoy, I guess. Or not. Probably not. Back to work, in any case.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We need to respect the rule of law, they are illegal immigrants, we should make them go home.
That's a post-hoc rationalization. I doubt anyone who has ever said it obey's all traffic laws. I'm confident that most everyone who's ever said that is happy to break laws they consider stupid or inconvenient. If the law required them to be separated from their children or forbid them from working or driving a car or owning a home, I doubt they'd be arguing about respecting the rule of law.
We don't need to respect laws that are harmful. The US immigration laws are very harmful. The need to be radically reformed and those who have broken the existing stupid and harmful laws needed to given a route to legal residency.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should make all the illegal immigrants go back home. But at no point should we really specifically target the businesses and enterprises who make USE of the illegal immigrants as a subclass of human who will work for less pay. They make sure to give us a lot of campaign contributions, so that's right out. But we still need to look tough on brown people, so let's just make sure they feel really really persecuted whenever they set foot off of the strawberry plantations, or put their kids in school.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
