2012 republican presidential nominee

Right now I think it's probably between Mitt and Jeb, but I honestly believe John Boehner has his eye set on the White House one day before long (not that he'd ever get there).

def jeb in 2012

I want that dynasty to run this roman empire into the ground

I voted palin btw - I think she could take iowa and south carolina

Makes sense. She's an honorary SC politician anyway.

and from there get something like a mccain 2008 victory (while basically winning the opposite states)

xp

people I DO NOT think it will be, despite highly visible media profiles: Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Huckabee

what about Liz Cheney or Haley Barbour? has either stated categorically they will not run?

Liz Cheney is every bit as hateful/hateable as her father, and the public, no matter how conservative they get, still hate Dick Cheney.

Politics aside, she's awful every time I see her on TV: vacuous, one-note.

i honestly have no idea. palin is the one to beat, and the party will be basically palinist no matter who wins, so, does it matter?

And Haley Barbour comes across like an extra on Dukes of Hazzard.

Wait, where's Barack Obama on the list?

har.

I can't remember the name of the guy, but who was the GOP whiz kid that was talking the loudest during the healthcare summit back in February? The one with all the facts and figures and reams of paper as his prop?

He's probably too young to be in serious consideration this time. Plus, there's the fact I can't remember his name.

Pence?

oh umm Ryan?

that's him!

he is not retarded btw, so that could be dangerous. but maybe in 2016.

probably should have added barbour (I made this using the top bets on intrade right now and he's not one of them)

but liz cheney - an unelected, uncharismatic female whose last name is 'cheney'...

hell, todd palin has a better shot than her

It will be Our Sarah, of course.

Yeah, Paul Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan_%28politician%29) is who I was thinking of. He's 40 now, he'll be 46 in 2016, and as long as he doesn't crash and burn before then, I think he'll either make a go of it of his own volition or be pressured into it by the GOP management.

I don't think Palin (Sarah, not Todd, although that's a fun thought) has much of a chance for doing well in the primaries, assuming Iowa's caucuses are still first in the lineup.

Despite what she'd have you believe, people actually do care that she quit her ELECTED job halfway into her stay.

you don't think palin can pick up the social conservative plurality that dubya and hucakbee won with?

xp

haha hucakbee

I will vote Huxtable in '12

DENISE! DENISE!

I'd say Jeb has the inside track, with his family connections and ability to take Florida and the border South, while still looking attractive to places like Pennsylvania, and Indiana.

Palin would be the dream candidate in terms of running the GOP right off the rails, while generating maximum electoral interest in all corners of the USA and the terrestrial globe.

Mitt failed once already, so he's unlikely to overcome the stigma of shameful loss. Pawlenty has insufficient appeal to the South. Jindal doesn't have the chops.

what about Thune? not enough name recog? i know he loves him some Jesus...

Jindal will never live down that SOTU rebuttal in the national perception. "Volcano monitoring? Huh huh."

none of these people seem to have enough going on to take out any of the rest decisively. '12 is a long ways away so who knows what's going to happen. i'm pretty sure it's going to be real fucked up tho!!

Huckabee terrifies me because he makes being a pig-ignorant douchebag seem so reasonable

This will be the first time since 1996 that the Dems haven't really had to stage a free-for-all primary race for the White House. It will be fun to lean back and watch instead of worry about who I'll be voting for as well.

(Although, my young, uninformed self actually voted for Dole in 1996, so what do I know? In fact, I've never voted for a sitting prez, so maybe I'll go GOP in '12 just to keep with tradition.)

hi dere otm

if were lucky obama will have ascended the lizard-throne and declared himself god-king by next harvest

luckily I don't think 'sounding reasonable' is gonna be key to this race

xp

GOP tends to nominate the guy who came in 2nd the last time there were real primaries (see: Reagan, HW Bush, Dole, McCain) so Romney seems likely. However, they have gone a lot more nuts in recent times, so who knows.

2000 was a free-for-all? (I mean technically, but)

I don't really buy the 'GOP likes to nominate...' logic - I mean there are pretty clear reasons why each of those guys got the nomination, and each one was a completely different situation.

is Reagan still dead?

2000 was a free-for-all? (I mean technically, but)

Gore didn't have it locked up early on by any means. I mean, by the time Super Tuesday came and went, he did, but there was a lot of tussling building up to the first rounds of the primaries.

gop and D primaries are structurally different

i mean, GOP is winner take all and the Dems are proportionally awarded delegates. it's almost as if one has early lock-in and the other a recipe for drawn-out disappointing contests built into the system...

xxp He never got less than 50% and only had one main challenger for the nomination. Hugely different scenario from 2004 or 2008.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I pray for Palin--for the spectacle, for the sure Obama win, for the chance to relive '64--but I really don't believe the party's that suicidal. The guy I'd most not want to go up against, believe it or not, is Romney. I know he has the usual array of liabilities, especially in getting the nomination, but in a general, I think he's just what they need. Politics often follows a yin-yang pattern, and after four (six, really) years of Obama using up every last ounce of oxygen in the room, Romney is boring and bland and unscary enough to win. The nomination's another matter, although he does have that next-guy-in-line factor that Republicans almost always honour working in his favour.

health care bill is enough to sink romney in the primaries...it's really an impossible situation for him to navigate. the thing he's BEST KNOWN for as governor - gov't(-ish) health care - is now the single biggest republican boogeyman. surely he's the strongest candidate as he's the least batshit insane, but I don't think that plays much of a factor in the tea party era.

haha er replace 'plays much of a factor' with 'is much of a factor' - alcohol etc.

palin is the one to beat

i so hope this is true.

I'm really starting to think palin has a slight edge.

I mean, look at that list. I guess Petraeus could work out, but who knows what kind of politician he would be (Wesley Clark seemed good on paper too).

she only has a slight edge if (a) the far-right/libertarian wing of the party dominates it in 2012, (b) the rest of the far-right/libertarian candidates clear out (and no-one else, like romney, can repackage themself in a way that satisfies the far-right), and (c) petraeus doesn't emerge as an overwhelming choice (i kind of doubt he will -- i have no idea, for instance, of his views on the social issues so important to much of the far-right -- but petraeus has the potential profile for it).

also: chocolate wine is pretty good! so if my sentence isn't lucid, that's (probably) the reason.

i like Tim Pawlenty way better than the rest, but he seems sorta uncommitted. think he would run the most successful campaign if he got past the primaries

i think he's the choice if this becomes a "gatekeeper-only" type nominee-scenario for the gop.

A question I've been pondering. Say you're the Republican nominee in 2012--Romney, Pawlenty, Scott Brown (who I just noticed isn't listed), whoever. The opportunity presents itself (an interview, something she says or does) to unequivocally call Palin out for the bad joke she is. Would that be a smart way to break free of your party's lunatic fringe, or would it be the surest path to general-election defeat? The latter is the quick and easy answer, but I'm not so sure. You'd immediately infuriate the idiot vote, that 20 or 25% of the country who believes it would be a good idea to install Palin as president. None of them are voting for Obama nohow, so how many would stay home (or vote third party), and how many would swallow hard and vote for you anyway? And on the other side of the ledger, how much of the independent vote would you pick up solely for that one act (perhaps even a small percentage of disaffected Democrats)? Would it be a wash, or would it tip the scale in one direction or the other?

what would be the way to call palin out? most of these dudes basically agree w/ her on the majority of the issues, they just present themselves better.

scott brown - mitt romney minus money, experience, supporters. nothing to run on and nobody to vote for him.

health care bill is enough to sink romney in the primaries...it's really an impossible situation for him to navigate.

i think people are oversimplifying the republican primary electorate. remember that they picked mccain last time, even with limbaugh and coulter and whoever threatening to leave the party if they did. also, i think this november isn't going to be triumphal enough for the tea partiers to seem like some indomitable force. (the election will be bad for democrats, but not good enough for republicans.) out of this field, i'm guessing mitt is the guy to beat, because of money and organization and name recognition. and also because people will be a lot less outraged over the health-care bill in a year than they are now. not because the bill will be some proven success, just because people get distracted easily.

palin won't run, because it's not in her interest to. nothing could hurt her brand more than tying for 2nd in iowa. and that way she can preserve her status as a possible contender in 2016. and write 4 more books in the interim, which will all net a million-plus. pawlenty is pawlenty, he'll run because what else is he going to do? i think mittster is the guy, though.

I think you're right and the average american won't give a shit about the health care bill a year from now, but come iowa, these attack ads write themselves and everyone's gonna be gunning for the top dog. 'obamacare' is not a vocab word that's gonna disappear for these people.

on top of everything else: nobody on the planet seems to actually like the dude on a personal level.

what would be the way to call palin out? most of these dudes basically agree w/ her on the majority of the issues, they just present themselves better.

― iatee, Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:13 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark

"Sarah makes a good point, I'm glad she remembered to write it on her hand today."

By "call her out," I didn't mean issues; I was thinking of intellect, competence, stability, seriousness, that kind of thing. I realize that Obama has thus far more or less given her a pass too, but for him, it made sense last time around; he correctly waited for her to self-destruct on her own. It's a high-risk proposition, but I would think a Republican nominee could really alter the general-election landscape by saying, "It's been fun for a while, but this woman is ridiculous. And smart people like Bill Bennett and Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan know that."

I like Obama just fine on a personal level.

What if Sarah Palin got the nomination, and was actually neck-and-neck or even had a slight advantage going into Election Tuesday in 2012? Would forces within the GOP actually sabotage her campaign secretly for the good of the country because Obama is at least the devil they know and Palin is the devil that could ruin our position in the world for decades? I know the number of "big picture" people within the GOP machine is shrinking, but they still tend to be those with a lot of the sway.

Daddy Yankee

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

lol mittens.

truthfully, of the major contenders, he'd be the least objectionable president. but i think you are seriously overestimating his chances.

Ready to make a move: Joe Barton.

I pray for Palin--for the spectacle, for the sure Obama win, for the chance to relive '64--but I really don't believe the party's that suicidal.

You pray for another Vietnam war?

yeah but lets win this one

You pray for another Vietnam war?

I'm not sure what you mean...I want Palin nominated as the safest guarantee that Obama wins reelection; if you're suggesting that, given a second term, Obama in Afghanistan = Vietnam, I simply don't believe that.

By reliving '64, I just meant the dynamic of the Johnson/Goldwater landslide.

unless the economy totally stagnates/collapses or we suffer a serious military or terrorist incident, pres. obama will defeat any of those listed above -- with one possible exception (gen. petraeus).

I was being glib, but I can't imagine a scenario wherein a GOP nominee supports a foreign policy as execrable and feckless as Obama's.

I'm very happy we got some fiction of universal health care, but at this moment I don't give a shit about his presidency.

He's not my president--some guy named Harper's in charge of my country--but I continue to think he's doing about as well as one can do running a three-ring circus (which includes not just the other side, but also the what he has to navigate his way through within his own congressional block). I think he'll honour the timeline he set out for withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially as public and media opposition mounts. Everyone's all over him at the moment. He's been in office for exactly 17 months.

but I can't imagine a scenario wherein a GOP nominee supports a foreign policy as execrable and feckless as Obama's.

you must not have a very good imagination, pretty sure I can imagine it

I was being glib, but I can't imagine a scenario wherein a GOP nominee supports a foreign policy as execrable and feckless as Obama's.

that scenario is "GWB seeks a third term"

don't you mean FOURTH TERM

yes yr right, lol @ anybody who thinks still being in afghanistan & iraq isn't awesome

otm

I was thinking "Campaign Obama" has been in hiding since he won, but then I started wondering if "Campaign Obama" would work a second time. All the feel-good stuff he used to stir emotions and energize voters surely wouldn't have the same effect next time since we've seen how hands-off he actually is with regard to legislation. He's basically just tossing vague parameters into congress and letting them bludgeon each other until some weak version of what once seemed like a great idea gets passed by a slim margin and the only thing that's really happened is an uglier tone from both sides. If he'd have used his mandate to hussle stronger heathcare and environmental shit through congress, locking out and neutering the GOP in the process, we'd be better off.

Now I realize why no senator has been elected to the office since JFK. They're too deferential.

it's not a matter of being defeterntial - there's only so much leverage obama has over ben nelson (etc.)

er 'deferential'

has he to date used any of that "so much" or is he saving it for a rainy day

also I would like to remind you guys that this thread is not '2012 democratic presidential nominee'

I started wondering if "Campaign Obama" would work a second time

yes, albeit not quite as well.

I would like to remind you guys that Obama sucks.

lol the two are basically on the same team xxxxp

oh look the whole gang's here

wait no we're missing one

why, whomever do you mean?

I would like to remind you guys that Obama sucks.

he sort of does, if only for his actually suggesting that lebron james should sign with the chicago bulls.

you want us to jump you in iatee? you'll never have to regret your vote again and there are no membership dues

as long as asses are being kicked, i'm cool

is there a secret handshake? I will consider it if there's a secret handshake

yeah you have to give the finger to the screen every time a Democrat promises to restrict reproductive access

you will need surgery on your hand after 3 months, be warned, but you do get a bitchin membership card

the only hitch: you gotta buy charter members gin and tonics.

^^^he said hitch

i open a politics thread maybe once a month and it's always alfred being tiresome.
wish i could suggest ban you daily

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object/1078/92/n2218196883_38586.jpg

this is actually our card

xp more like 153

haha have you met morbius? xps

Yeah, is there really anyone here who won't acknowledge that every president sucks? It's just a sliding scale of "I wish he didn't suck" to "OMG DEF CON 4 WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE."

suggest buy me a drink and I'll crack Haley Barbour jokes.

hope 156 gets to 51 before 11/1

gotta stan for wh harrison, sry

although i guess he sucked for dying and leaving us john tyler nm

Now I realize why no senator has been elected to the office since JFK. They're too deferential.

― Johnny Fever, Monday, June 21, 2010 1:54 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

LBJ wasn't that deferential, IIRC.

would you be saying the same thing about mccain?

changing my vote to pawlenty.

'12 might be the year for the GOP to pick its john kerry: an uninteresting last man standing. nothing really going for him, but crucially no 'flaws' either. however their primary structure tends to punish candidates like this badly. still, pawlentymentum, catch it!!

which one of you voted for him?

After reading this I can't help but feel like a Huckabee candidate would be a really strong candidate.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/28/100628fa_fact_levy?printable=true

I continue to think he's doing about as well as one can do running a three-ring circus

Think harder.

LBJ wasn't that deferential, IIRC.

http://democracyjournal.org/article2.php?ID=6760&;limit=0&%23038;limit2=1500&%23038;page=1

The Caro book is better than that article, but the point is that it's an extreme whitewashing of history to cast LBJ as some kind of perfect president. Lots of progressives had huge problems with him at the time.

yeah, vietnam, it was a thing

It'll be amazing to see how much more of a "cautious" status-quo-at-best fuck Obama can become w/ all these ILXor votes sewn into his back pocket.

can't win an election these days without the key 'ILX vote'

we're the soccer moms of 2010

morbz, dude, you're a moron. he's not "cautious." he's doing what he believes. shocking breaking news update: you don't become president of the united states by bucking the cultures and trends of the country. he's status-quo-at-best because this country is status-quo-at-best. i'm happy for the little progressive victories we can get, and you should definitely protest things that bug you, but you sound like an idiot ringing the same bell all the time. if you think you can find a state in the world that doesn't perpetuate its own power and promote its own interests, then let us all in on the secret.

i know it feels awesome to be totes perfect ethical beast who can't be compromised by the things you read on the blogs and in the news, but soooooo fucking tiring.

or crucial ilx vote can break for someone who more accurately reflects our lefty progressive values and watch moderates and right-wingers rally around candidates who are demonstrably worse, even if it's only by a matter of degrees, until we are all dead. yay.

It's not "the state" that's perpetuating its own power, it's the people who are presently in power perpetuating their power (wow, alliteration!). That's the status quo that Obama is preserving.

The "transformational" promise of Obama's campaign was the possibility of getting those not presently in power back into democratic activism---this was the "community organizer" bit, and it was why I supported Obama's campaign so strongly. That is the real long game for the Democratic Party as a representative of the powerless, even if the present leaders (including Obama) are doing little toward that at present.

he's doing what he believes.

I don't see how you can know that. (My guess is that these imperial caretakers believe in very little besides power... see J Stewart's Frodo bit last week.)

Powerless people lack power. This is pretty self-evident. How did you think the powerless would get power? It would be magically ceded to them when a wealthy Harvard law grad was elected? Beyond insane.

lol

again, "just short of perfection" is all you can rap the guy with

whereas "second coming of a fictional antichrist" appears to be your main criticism

Morbz, you put those quotation marks around those words. Is there someone here who said them?

Or do you just not know what quotation marks signify?

Mordy, do you really think "this country is status-quo-at-best"? wtf does that mean? you mean, the elites want to stay elite, and yeah, duh. But yeah, I guess democratic change by the presently-unempowered-masses is just being "magically ceded" power, right? i.e. fuckin elections, how do they work?

"Obama is the best president ever" - Dr. Morbius

weird, why does he keep changing his opinion?

quote this:

i know it feels awesome to be totes perfect ethical beast who can't be compromised by the things you read on the blogs and in the news, but soooooo fucking tiring

See, bcz I knock B. Milhous Obama's shit i consider myself "the perfect ethical beast"

This thread is about the 2012 republican candidates, guyz.

a very dumb topic... gabbnebian.

talking about something is gabbnebian?

I think he's probably referring to the far-off prognosticating. As in: Your 2012 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

Chris Matthews does this shit better and gets paid for it; better just to hijack threads to talk shit about Obama.

the only thing right about that sentence the part about getting paid

it's not particularly far-off anymore - 2012 campaign starts in half a year

xp

There is a thread entirely dedicated to discussing Obama's flaws, helpfully titled "what are barack obama's flaws?" What's happening right now isn't a discussion, it's being a trolling, attention-seeking dick.

Think harder.

Thanks for the counsel--will do. Or better yet, seeing as you've figured out what he needs to do, send you plans directly to the president--today, for the sake of the children.

(and ftr some of this stuff is perfectly in line with the rolling political thread but loading up every vaguely politically-related thread and posting "OBAMA IS A LIAR: PROOF" to them when regardless of content is flat-out trolling and you know it, so knock it off)

Matthews just now pushing a "Jindal: the candidate who lost himself in the SOTU response but rose to the challenge of the crisis in the Gulf and restored his potential candidacy" narrative pretty hard

Matthews loves him some Nikki Haley.

he should get in line

Jindal has gotten a lot of good press from both sides the past few weeks, but I still think he'll have to contend with a certain schoolboy image he projects to get very far. Same thing Edwards had working against him (for him, too, to a certain extent, but more so against him, I'd say) in 2004, before we learned he was Harry Reems in his spare time.

Thanks for the counsel--will do. Or better yet, seeing as you've figured out what he needs to do, send you plans directly to the president--today, for the sake of the children.

― clemenza, Monday, June 21, 2010 5:33 PM (24 minutes ago)

ah, the classic centrist rallying cry - "think you could do a better job? well then stop complaining!"

Yes, that's what I'm doing: rallying the centrists. Jesus, you guys are something.

"centrist" was a lazy zing, the part in quotes was me breakin down what you said. i do not accuse you of literally "rallying centrists"

Here's the thing (and I realize this is off-thread, and have been trying not to do that): those of you who are so down on Obama, were you paying any attention to what he had to go through to get a little bit of modest health care reform through? That was the three-ring circus I'm talking about, writ large. To a Canadian, it was insanity--on the right, and also Nelson, Lieberman, Stupak, etc. on the other side. Out there, in Palin-land, he was tranformed into Adolph Manson. So sure, criticize him. But it's just fantasyland to think he could come in and sweep legislation through like Johnson did in '65 and '66. Johnson couldn't do it today. Not even close.

I would answer you properly in the other thread; if you don't want to wade through the health care thread, I'd understand.

Point me to the other thread, we'll pick it up there.

what are barack obama's flaws?

HI DERE XIV is really starting to piss me off again, along w/ the rest of you

I see an awesome photoshop in the future

Dr. Cox, ladies&gentlemen

never mind, I'm quitting the poli threads again.

but the nomination will go to the guy who beats Obama after I campaign for 2012's New Nader.

Thank fucking God, you insufferable boor.

sand + vagina = = "Thank fucking God, you insufferable boor."

<3 morbs

yes, we know

http://www.orleans-tours.iufm.fr/ressources/ucfr/arts/copiearthistoire/louisxiv.JPG

nice shoes, gotta say

Bit sword you're packin'.

*big

let them fear my sword, but let them respect my ivory pantyhose

never mind, I'm quitting the poli threads again.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 June 2010 02:46 (1 hour ago)

LOL

logging off, going to sleep and coming back 12 hours later isn't really "quitting," Morbs.

but the nomination will go to . . . 2012's New Nader.

name names. billing oneself as the "New Nader" is a compelling slogan for a democratic challenger i must say.

uh, fuck Democrats

also nice misquote, buhbye

i am ashamed. what did you mean, actually?

oh, i see now. just as amusing!

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/70478/

The second set of objections to Huntsman 2012 are more conventional. At a time when all the energy on the Republican side is being generated by the tea party, Huntsman is too cerebral, too patrician, and too globalist to affect even a reasonable facsimile of hot-eyed populism. And between that and his apostasies on matters gay and green, he would be simply unacceptable to too much of the party’s base.

these guys are just going to implode again, right? like it's fine marshalling general malcontentedness without any specific direction right now, but once they have to elect a nominee, and assuming they err towards crazy, it has to be a pretty big deterrent to most people. i can imagine some kinda attractive harvey dent/mario rubio guy picking it up in five years but there's no one appealing this time around.

huckabee? I disagree with all his stances on social issues but he is at least personally likable, which is more than you can say about any of the others.

lol huckabee is as much of a neocon hack as the rest of them, man does not have a likeable bone in his body

he's straight up evil

he plays wicked bass though

^^^devil has all best tunes, film at 11...

these guys are just going to implode again, right?

yep

lookin forward to it

also Huckabee is one of the funniest/worst interviewers ever if you ever catch his TV show

"implode"
watch that rhetoric

who's watching this debate

I guess I'm in.

wait -- where's Fred Thompson?

holy shit, santorum is so orange

santorum's face is really strange

what the fuck is godfather's pizza

this guy is a major homo, whoever he is

lol

yeah what the FUCK was that little kerfuffle?

oh wow he's also named "governor johnson"

lindsey graham REALLY wants gary johnson's national profile to increase

i really want tim pawlenty to get far so we can get the "SUP Y'ALL JUST ME DOING SOME HUNTING" photo op from him

man all of Johnson's nervous energy up there, the thumb twiddling and cuticle picking... I kind of feel bad for the guy

could you imagine working on gary johnson's campaign? what kinda life is that

tim pawlenty saying the word "disco"

Pawlenty trying really hard to be provocative, but you forget everything he's said within 2 seconds.

"we really needed our own version of john kerry" -no republican ever at any point

ron paul getting the consistently largest cheers

man all of Johnson's nervous energy up there, the thumb twiddling and cuticle picking... I kind of feel bad for the guy

― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, May 5, 2011 8:42 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

maybe there was a drug test before this thing, dyou GET me

shiiiiiit there's a debate on?

maybe there was a drug test before this thing, dyou GET me

― goole, Thursday, May 5, 2011 9:50 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

he does have a 'ted haggard on meth" vibe to him

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gary+johnson%22+%22legalize%22

ron paul's role in 2012 GOP is so great/funny

"mr. cain, a disgruntled godfather's pizza company said that a 10 minute late delivery is a "breach of CEO duties, and borderline treason" -- how do you respond to that

Godfather's Pizza was big in the eighties: first time I ever learned how disgusting black olives were.

is there a new SNl this week

i don't even think SNL employs enough white males to fill this panel out

haha

kristen wiig ought do romney

pawlenty's big applause line was a chicken/egg pun

are they gonna ask rick about google image search

they're literally debating whether women should be working

lmao

sad lmao obv

my arch-con aunt & uncle really took to Herman Cain (Godfather's Pizza guy), saying that if he ran, America would have their "first real black President"*

I smell a running mate for Romney

*they say that they are referring to the fact that Obama is only half-black

(yes my uncle is frogbs)

oh man herman cain is a trip

how about sending a man that has a career of identifying problems? when there was a green pepper shortage, who do you think the second tier pizza chain community turned to?

Cain and Santorum look the most presidential up there (when they're not talking).

lol pawlenty saying "spouse"

ok Johnson is the story of this debate

ok I am bummed I was missing this because the tab on the channel-scroll said "political debate" and I thought "lol somebody didn't feel like typing the name of whatever program's on"

I'VE GOT THE ARROWS IN MY BACK
--Santorum

btw J0rdan S. just catchin up on this thread but you seem to have been utterly killing it, ty 4 lols

I'd be watching this thing if I had cable.

this Frank Luntz focus group is nuts for Herman Cain! WAHT

oh man the guy in the front row with the bow tie

George Will?

in training

lol only six people WANT Trump to run.

of course, they're all Cainiacs now!

id say one of j0rdans best skills is liveblogging tbh

heh

they're literally debating whether women should be working

I missed this and I'm just getting home but if this is close to true then holy shit loooool

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/joshua_green/Pawlenty-Gay.jpg

http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/files/2010/06/ted-haggard12.jpg

Evangelical Christian
Married
Five Children
Definitely Not Ambidextrous (I looked it up)

Nothing on the political thread that I could see, unless I missed it. I do feel excitement in the air.

http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/09/files/2010/09/newt-gingrich.jpg

bleurgh

romney-gingrich '12!

http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/09/files/2010/09/newt-gingrich.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6-IIXAF5HOE/RqqVRDNVqUI/AAAAAAAAAqY/AGqUzhAMFyk/s400/FudgeRomney.jpg

catch the ... newtonium?

My dream debate is Obama/Gingrich, the moment where Gingrich starts lecturing Obama on family values.

that mitt photo must be one of the best photographs of the past 100 years, it just needs a tie-in event to make it canonical

Actually, if Gingrich were to ever start lecturing Obama on family values, I'd actually get really nervous..."Please don't say anything, Barack--just smile."

I don't think anyone would lecture Obama on that, let alone Gingrich. Gingrich is not stupid, he's very very smart. He's wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean he is going to be some dumbass candidate bumbling through his run like Trump or Palin. Everyone hates him though so I don't think he's an actual threat; but I do think he's probably the only person who would talk about substantive issues in a debate.

No, I agree; he wouldn't be stupid enough ever to set himself up like that. And actually, for reasons you point out, I think a Gingrich/Obama debate would be pretty great.

he won't get that far though.

i want to dispute the idea that gingrich is "Very very smart" but i dont have any actual evidence other than the fact that hes a republican

couldn't you fall back on the argument that he is just book smart, and can recite a lot of stuff, but is not in control of actual working human brain smarts. that he is sorta elitist smart.

I object to the implication that book-smarts are elitist, and I think that the Republican opportunism could be considered an extremely heightened version of "street smarts"

Once upon a time Gingrich had a time, but Beltway politics melted it. He's "smart" to Beltway insiders because his words boast a patina of smartness.

*had a brain, heh

so the elder Paul is officially in. I saw a bathroom graffito (in Park Slope, no less) the other night that said RON PAUL 2012, so I crossed out the year and put 1988.

LOL

In re Newt, I'd go with 'hasn't been relevant in the 21st Century, unlikely to change that fact with a Prez run, on wrong side of history, talks a good game but collapses under any real pressure or scrutiny'.

I don't have a problem with calling Gingrich smart--I guess you could substitute "articulate," if you think he's a nutcase, but by smart, I just mean in the general sense of being widely read and able to debate issues. Smart as in not-Palin. I don't believe he actually believes half the stuff he says, it's just advantageous for him to say it, so I'd say he's also quite dishonest. But I realize that many people would say exactly the same about Obama.

Would LOLLLLL if Obama called Newt 'articulate'.

i read some hack or blogger or someone recently who claimed it was well-known that newt can't run things for shit, and would have trouble keeping a campaign on track.

Would LOLLLLL if Obama called Newt 'articulate'

Even better, "clean and articulate"--isn't that what Biden or Reid said about Obama early on?

kinda can't imagine it was clean

no: you're right: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said

Al Sharpton's reaction to the comment: "I bathe every day."

I'm guessing Amtrak Joe was ditching Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson as 'non-mainstream'

ie you could tell they weren't Republicans

Huckleberry's out. My guess is that he'd jump at a VP spot.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FI4I_xI_eC8/TdKpWFPQJ0I/AAAAAAABFpw/iJRjPoYvWCI/s1600/SantorumSticker.jpeg

Useful Morbs post! HUZZAH.

nooooo, it's all useless

On Herman Cain - "With his booming voice and practiced delivery he comes across a bit like an African-American Teddy Roosevelt."

What does that even mean? TR had one of the squeakiest, high-pitched voices of any president.

I've never heard a recording of TR. Where can I find such a thing?

http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/recordings/detail/id/2859

Thanks. That was enlightening to say the least.

Using an urban phrase used to convey a sense of excitement, radio host and businessman Herman Cain emerged to throngs of supporters on Saturday and formally announced his presidential bid.

"Awww shucky ducky," the conservative Republican joked with the crowd

Very Chester Arthur-esque.

daniels is out btw

Huntsman ftw

Huntsman is too reasonable of a guy to get through the primary process (probably). In a general, he might prove a formidable opponent.

Part of me is hoping a Huntsman or Romney actually get the nomination for the general race is more of a nailbiter (just for pure entertainment value), but the other part is hoping some clown gets the nod and loses even more red states than McCain did.

Wiki lols

Huntsman is also a self-proclaimed fan of the progressive rock genre and on July 30, 2007, attended a concert by progressive metal band Dream Theater. Later that day, Huntsman signed a proclamation creating "Dream Theater Day" on that date for the state of Utah. According to Dream Theater's website, Huntsman is a keyboard player. Huntsman also joined REO Speedwagon on the piano for two songs during their concert at the Utah State Fair on September 16, 2005.

ALL FOR PROG, PROG FOR ALL...HUNTSMAN 2012

Hmm yeah ws thinking general really, primary's likely to be nutso. Huntsman's old band ws called WIZARD!

Looking forward to George Will's reaction to Daniels today. (I'm still recovering from "George Will" and "boner" being used in the same sentence on the political thread last week.)

Forgot Pawlenty. I can see him having a shot. Something abt Romney seems too fucking obv, also SHOCK AWE good on healthcare, GOP don't swing that way

Sticking w Huntsamn cos as J Fever said, if he makes it to general he can match Obama personalitywise. And fuck, the idea of a PROG candidate tickles my testes

who is teeth

Some guy who had to change his name for a new password, been around for years, not interesting

Andrew Thames

Meet your new maverick:

He may have served as the Speaker of the House for nearly four years, made dozens of appearances on the flagship interview shows of the Washington circuit, and founded a hydra of a political organization so vast that it's nicknamed "Newt Inc."

But don't call Newt Gingrich a D.C. guy.

“I'm not a Washington figure, despite the years I've been here," the former House speaker told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Monday. “I’m essentially an American whose ties are across the country and whose interest is in how you change Washington and not how you make Washington happy.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/23/6700723-gingrich-i-am-not-a-washington-figure

"essentially an American"? sounds fishy

What kind of name is Newt, anyway? Kenyan?

Via the Atlantic/Sullivan, nagl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAc1I--I8Os

dude looks like Mr. Rogers

T-Paw is IN

I may regret saying this, but as vulnerable as Obama could well be in 2012, I can't see Pawlenty as the guy to beat him. I haven't seen a whole of him yet, but from what I have seen, he seems too mild. Which is good on one hand--he doesn't come across as threatening--but not good on the other; whoever runs against Obama will have to (ginned-up or otherwise) convincingly convey indignation at all the horrible things Obama has done to ruin the country. (This thread could serve as a farm team if he needs consultants.) Not in a shrill, hysterical way, like Trump or Palin, but something more measured that approximates authenticity. He seems so boyish to me. I've only seen Rick Perry a couple of times on the Sunday shows, but he would seem to be more formidable. (Not talking about paper trails and/or flip-flops here, just who'd be more effective in a debate, or who seems more "presidential.")

He's been my gov for the last 8 years. His social conservatism (and recent attempts to court the religious right even more arduously) are just... ugh...

from what I can tell he is a hapless, ineffectual drip

One of three U.S. governors who publicly declared solidarity with Christian-right group Family Research Council.

I was trying to be clear that I wasn't talking about policy or record, just cosmetics. Whoever wins the presidency has to reach a certain level of credibility with half the country of, "Can I see this guy as president." Pawlenty does not, from what I've seen of him, reach that level. Which may just mean that I haven't seen enough of him.

whoever runs against Obama will have to (ginned-up or otherwise) convincingly convey indignation at all the horrible things Obama has done to ruin the country. (This thread could serve as a farm team if he needs consultants.)

Gimme two hours with him in a Dublin pint. The Guinness is on me.

*pub. Pint too!

lol @ you sitting down with Pawlenty and giving him strategy tips

Clemenza, I'm with you on the lack of gravitas as well. He's totally an empty suit.

Plus, even if you can set aside the social stuff, he "balanced" MN's budget with a combination of cutting essential services, raising "fees", and a buttload of smoke and mirrors to leave us about $4 billion short of budget.

Pawlenty shaved the mullet. What other advice could I give him...?

here's my very surface-y read of the guy: pretty smooth, in a basic down-the-line suburban country club kind of way. kind of a homeboy, kept his hockey hair until like two years ago (that's how the local press knew he wanted to be president, the joke went). he's not much an ideologue, beyond what anyone in upper management or made partner at a business-friendly law firm might be, but he's going all-out on the firebreather shit because that's what the moment needs. you might call that "servicing the client" but frankly he just looks desperate and silly and everybody knows it. he seems to be a paler version of mitt romney, both in his strengths and weaknesses. unremarkable. i really can't figure out what he thinks he's doing. but he's in the game and i'm not so who knows. if a "generic R" beats obama next year, maybe being that in essence is a winner.

xp lol

Obama won Pawlenty's home state very conclusively in 2008. Minnesota squeaked through a Democratic governor in 2010 against national trends.

Besides which, Timmy was a douche when he lived next door to my dad.

pawlenty's a big flip-flopper (supported cap & trade), and raised taxes (er, "fees") while governor. and on the culture-war front has said in no uncertain terms he would work to reinstate DADT. oh really? please do give us a detailed blueprint on how you would implement that, Mr Pawlenty. i was hoping someone would ask him just that during that GOP debate/ comedy hour on FOX last month.

Pawlenty has the manner of a classic Rotarian.

I assume you mean even-tempered, and I assume you see that as a positive thing. Or am I misinterpreting?

depends on how you regard Rotarians. I'm with Mencken in being snooty about'em.

reverse snootyism

Snoot-Hawley, if you like.

;_; my dad's a Rotarian

does he wear the hat????

Okay...If you'd said yes, I was going to ask why an even-tempered Pawlenty is good, but an even-tempered Obama is spineless. But never mind.

xp: not in my presence, but he did make us go to a meeting

btw, don't go to a Rotary meeting

http://chesapeake.clubwizard.com/IMUpload/chesapeake%20rotary%20makeup8.jpg

Okay...If you'd said yes, I was going to ask why an even-tempered Pawlenty is good, but an even-tempered Obama is spineless. But never mind.

Obama's problem isn't his manner, which I've always admired. Reagan was a genial man who was a crocodile at the negotiating table.

I was chosen to be a student Rotarian in twelfth grade. I remember a chicken lunch and talking a lot.

what's changed?

Reagan was a genial man who was a crocodile at the negotiating table.

And the table had four legs, and there were people on either side of it. But we've been down this road before.

what's changed?

It's now cold-cut sandwiches and a woman showing everyone picturees of her new kitten on her iPad. I'm not even making that up.

I was hoping you'd say she'd eat the kitten on her iPad.

With relish.

There was a woman there who had just come back from an 8 week trip to Rwanda to build schools and they spent more time talking about this woman's kitten than they did this way-more-important project.

Also, the speaker was from the local power squadron, ostensibly to talk about boating safety; the first thing dude did was tell them that if they came to power squadron meetings they'd get lobster instead of this cold-cut crap. It was kind of hilarious all the way around.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mitt_looks_the_part

man so much wrongness in one article there...

His assessments of individual candidates are a little generous, but I think his basic point, that cosmetics matter a lot more than people care to believe--the same point I was making above with regards to Pawlenty--is solid. The one thing with Romney is that sometimes comes across as a parody of what "presidential"'s supposed to mean.

I say this not because Mitt's mind is the sharpest of the likely contenders (Newt Gingrich is far more nimble intellectually

I almost stopped reading there until I got to the part where he accepts the disproven idea that McGovern was "out of the mainstream."

i love robert reich but that's pretty weak, yeah. i had no idea he ran for MA governor!

Ha, my fiancee works for Rotary. She could tell you stories.

Also, there is no hat! Are you thinking of Shriners?

I assumed he meant the ugly straw hats I keep seeing in GIS results

I'll happily send $10 for a Rotary hat.

I am not sure I would tell anyone if my dad was a Shriner

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123085/2138121/2145516/060711_HW_RotaryClubEX.jpg

santorum!

and a palin bus tour.

and here i was sad that trump and huckabee were gone, second guessing that this was going to be a huge clusterfuck.

Will that be a shortbus?

Santorum all over America's highways and byways.

Pawlenty was on ABC this morning talking about how salt of the earth he is--not a "pinhead" (his word) who writes white papers. Not sure who's referring to there. D-U-M-B, law reviews are not for me.

"who he's"

not a "pinhead" (his word) who writes white papers.

talkin' to the folks who watch o'reilly factor w/daily featured segment "PINHEADS AND PATRIOTS" no doubt

letterman was OTM re Romney in 2008

He looks like an American president in a Canadian movie.

you guys:

Gary Johnson
The former governor of New Mexico formally announced on April 12 that he's running for president. He made his announcement on the steps of the New Hampshire Statehouse.

Johnson is a libertarian whose stances in favor of marijuana legalization and open borders are anathema to many Republican voters.

Political observers say the former governor doesn't stand a chance.

lol

Also, many internet nobodies like myself say the former governor doesn't stand a chance. Also, I asked my neighbor's dog, and even he says the former governor doesn't stand a chance.

why is this guy even running

could ask that question about a lot of people

Why? Because they believe in lightening striking from heaven on behalf of the lone, good man who fights the good fight, and because they believe profoundly in their powers of persuasion, and because they like to hear themselves talk.

maybe he just wanted to embarrass greenwald

can't win if you don't play

for the gift bag, probably

The choice of the Bittersweet Farm for his announcement is an interesting one for Mr. Romney, who regularly argues for a smaller federal government that spends less. The rolling green hills of the farm were preserved in recent years in part with $1 million in federal money, according to a recent report in Seacoast Online.

A spokesman for Mr. Romney’s campaign told John Harwood of The New York Times: “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a federally subsidized backdrop. It’s a nice farm in New Hampshire, a landmark.”

this clown is so doomed

hahahahaha oh man

MittMania!

I am giddy for a Romney run. Eighteen more months of what you see in this clip. It's gonna be hilar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7JLhKqtJHs

Alex Cockburn thinks an economic populist with zero-tolerance stances on abortion and immigration could do best in the primaries, ie: Pitchfork Pat Buchanan.

Pawlenty would in turn drastically cut spending, including some possible cuts or privatizations/eliminations of services that people have taken for granted: "There are some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call 'The Google Test.' If you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it. The post office, the government printing office, Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. That's no longer the case."

maybe that'll get you out of the single digits, hating the post office

dude want to eliminate THE POST OFFICE???????

We can start by applying what I call The Asshole Test.

Can't wait for the private sector to start dishing out zip codes.

also where are all of these privately-owned trains

i can find a lot of dudes with guns on the internet, do you see where i'm going with this

dude want to eliminate THE POST OFFICE???????

― low-rent black gangster nicknamed Bootsy (DJP), Tuesday, June 7, 2011 11:36 AM (2 minutes ago)

right-wingers have been calling for thsi for years - what do we need the post office for when we have UPS/fedex?

I'm totally in favor of the Gary Johnson bid, he's like Ron Paul without the shrill kook element. Anything that splits the libertarian wing from the bible-drawl wing is a good thing.

He's also a fairly personable character, as demonstrated by his surprise wins in Democratic New Mexico.

Fannie and Freddie, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products.

Um, before Fannie and Freddie, most houses were bought on a cash basis. After their nationalization, private investors have been net sellers of Fannie/Freddie mortgage backed products, the main net buyer has been the Federal Reserve.

Not that I favor subsidizing sprawl, but without Fannie & Freddie mediated financing, the real estate market would have tumbled another 25%. Eliminating this subsidy is a political non-starter in most Republican districts.

I remember UPS (I think, might have been another) saying that they wouldn't run post to certain rural area on a regular basis because it wouldn't be profitable.

Maybe they could use ponies instead of big brown trucks.

I remember UPS (I think, might have been another) saying that they wouldn't run post to certain rural area on a regular basis because it wouldn't be profitable.
--Gukbe

seems pretty sensible to me. people shouldn't be subsidized for living in the middle of nowhere.

yuk yuk

they should be able to get the damn mail

seems pretty sensible to me. people shouldn't be subsidized for living in the middle of nowhere.

― iatee, Tuesday, June 7, 2011 12:02 PM Bookmark

How about electricity or schools?

romney leads owebama 49-46. hypothetically

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/165043-poll-romney-leads-obama-among-registered-voters

those aren't managed federally, but the same logic holds for any govt service - if we're masking the real cost of providing it to far out areas, we're promoting environmentally unsound, uneconomic land-use.

anyway there's a thread for this

look i'm usually with you but you are letting one heuristic trump all others.

all people are equally american, and all places within the borders of the us are equally american, and that necessarily implies any number of "inefficiencies", because, yeah, providing and ensuring a sufficient amount of "americanness" might take more resources in some places more than others. everybody needs to get the damn mail, period. if that means some bush planes out to those wackos living above the arctic circle then fine.

all people are equally american, and all places within the borders of the us are equally american, and that necessarily implies any number of "inefficiencies"

pretty sure the GOP does not subscribe to this notion

oh forget it i'm not doing this on this thread

look I don't think subsidized mail is the most important battleground on this issue or even top 50 - it's just one of many, many hidden subsidies that add up to something huge. I don't actually think people in Alaska should have to pay $5 for a stamp.

but maybe each stamp could come with a piece of paper that says 'it's costing us $5 to send this shit for you, btw'

*biodegradable paper

it amazes me how much time is wasted discussing the many, many subsidies hidden in discretionary spending that sorta might add up to whatever when the big money is in 3 departments. I don't give a fuck what fun little project some jackhole congressman got $50,000 for when we got missles that cost more than that and all they do is EXPLODE.

that's a different issue, I'm talking about subsidies that fuck w/ personal incentives. the actual $ the post office spends isn't the issue.

this just makes me wonder what else a missile should do besides explode

The subsidizing of rural services by urban areas is compensated by the development of rural resources used by urbanites. When cities graze their own cattle and raise their own wheat, they can sneer at people living in the middle of nowhere.

but maybe each stamp could come with a piece of paper that says 'it's costing us $5 to send this shit for you, btw'

how would you fit this on a stamp

microfiche

Can every penny come with a piece of paper that says "it's costing us 10¢ to make this shit for you, btw."

And each piece of that paper should come with another piece of paper that says, "And THIS is costing us 3¢," etc. etc. ad infinitum.

this just makes me wonder what else a missile should do besides explode

deliver pizza?

the new Perfect Gentleman missile buys you a nice dinner before it explodes all over you

The subsidizing of rural services by urban areas is compensated by the development of rural resources used by urbanites. When cities graze their own cattle and raise their own wheat, they can sneer at people living in the middle of nowhere.
--Aimless

they get paid market value. and then on top of that they get absurd fed subsidies so they don't have to compete with the rest of the world. that's not enough?

no

how bout the people who live on lad that can't be farmed

land

What about the people who built the house for the farmers with the federal subsidies or repairs the equipment or teaches his children? I guess his choice is to either commute from the city 200 miles away or go without mail service.

or he could just keep building houses out there forever and ever

I don't think you understood what PP said

yeah the grammar is confusing

will an economic shift like that be unfairly painful? yes. as is $4 gas. but the govt needs to help those same people in ways that don't fuck w/ long-term incentives.

the government should charge 42 cents for every email that gets sent

lol max, it's 44 cents now

yeah i want to incentivize people to send emails

by 2 cents

haha I can't read

My grammar was pretty bad, but my gist is not everyone in the sticks receives subsidies from the federal government.

And no, electricity and schools aren't directly run by the Fed, like the USPS is, but in the case of utilities, the government does have a heavy hand in building dams and contracting the energy out to private companies.

Incentives are already abound for urban living - better schools, better transpiration options, pizza delivery - but actually penalizing people for living further away and disregarding the need for a rural population isn't a good idea.

but people living outside of cities are stupid and should be destroyed

I can't believe youre going with stamps v missiles rather than envisioning Pat Buchanan running for prez again.

saw this the other day

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231060885070.htm

no idea if it's true, but i like the post office in america. the guy in the one in santa monica told me my accent made me sound like elvis presley.

Incentives are already abound for urban living - better schools, better transpiration options, pizza delivery - but actually penalizing people for living further away and disregarding the need for a rural population isn't a good idea.

and the important incentive ($$$) doesn't exist for city-living at the moment.

tweaking a poorly designed incentive structure =/= penalizing. something like a high gas tax would be penalizing. (right now) I'm just arguing that we should let people pay more of the direct costs for their lifestyles.

ps huh 'schools'?

I mean I guess you're comparing deep rural zones to suburban and not to inner city schools? yeah inner city school system is better than 'no school' but schools are generally not one of the reasons people want to move to the big city.

anyway like I said upthread there's a thread for this

btw most of these arguments are just indirect ways for me to bitch about my rent

That's just me. I am amazed by the variety of schools - public, private and charter - available to my kids in the most populous county in the state. High schools offer AP classes for college credit. Another has its own television studios. (Both of those public schools.) Meanwhile, the rural school I went to for 12 years had one foreign language (Spanish) offered in fifth period only, no AP classes or TV stations, no football team, a school newspaper that came out quarterly and lower test scores.

Again, I know that many urban areas grapple with deteriorating schools, but at least they don't take a day off every year for deer hunting.

http://www.ibj.com/study-urban-tax-money-subsidizes-rural-counties/PARAMS/article/15690

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

For whatever reason, so-called "blue states" tend to be high-income areas that pay the vast majority of federal taxes. Some 84 percent of federal individual income taxes—which account for over 40 percent of federal revenue—are paid by the those in the top 25 percent of the income distribution. The majority of these taxpayers live in wealthy, urban, politically "blue" areas like New York, California, and Massachusetts.

Even if federal spending were equal in all states, wealthy states would still send substantially more federal tax dollars to Washington than they received in spending, simply because they earn a majority of the nation's income. This disparity is greatly magnified by the progressive rate structure of the federal income tax, which taxes higher income states more heavily than low-income states, regardless of the level of spending received.

We should have these instead of SB buttons.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2306/screenshot20110607at259.png

(Must be a cup of coffee from a blue state. Our coffee only costs like $3.96.)

I wish my high school had gotten a day off for deer hunting!

“We liberated billions of good people from communism, fascism, and jihadism." -- pawlentybro

as daniel larison points out, thats some odd math tim is using

That's just me. I am amazed by the variety of schools - public, private and charter - available to my kids in the most populous county in the state. High schools offer AP classes for college credit. Another has its own television studios. (Both of those public schools.) Meanwhile, the rural school I went to for 12 years had one foreign language (Spanish) offered in fifth period only, no AP classes or TV stations, no football team, a school newspaper that came out quarterly and lower test scores.

Again, I know that many urban areas grapple with deteriorating schools, but at least they don't take a day off every year for deer hunting.

― отдых в Крыму! (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, June 7, 2011 7:15 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'county' incorporates inner city & suburban schools. in IL new trier high school gets like 20k per student (or did when i was in, like, jr. high. its probably much higher now) while kids in downstate rural IL get 2k per student. thats fucked up. but otoh, kids growing up in the austin neighborhood of chicago arent getting much $$ either.

but thats cuz schools are based on property taxes iirc

yeah i think i basically agree with PP to the extent that i understand this disagreement, but public schools are funded by property taxes and most of the city schools i've seen, at least where I live, cannot possibly be better in quality than rural schools. maybe they're bad in different ways, but.

odd math tim is using

the chinese communist party is now honorarily non-communist and republican-approved. oh, and we fought them in Korea to liberate them, amirite? it all follows. hooray, usa!

funded by property taxes and most of the city schools i've seen, at least where I live, cannot possibly be better in quality than rural schools. maybe they're bad in different ways, but.

With more property in the city, wouldn't there be more tax money available? Of course, there are more students. Whatever the case may be, I don't know if a rural school can claim superiority because of a high property tax rate.

Just sayin', not trying to stir up anyone.

in IL new trier high school gets like 20k per student (or did when i was in, like, jr. high. its probably much higher now)

wait lol did you go to new trier I did some work there last year

Fuck New Trier. And what the fuck is a "Trevian" anyway? (asks a former Wildkit)

new trier is where ferris bueller went, isn't it? major north shore chicago money. he'd probably be a senior vp at goldman sachs by now

ive heard good things about new trier! kristen dunst won an award for it at cannes!

Fuck New Trier.

This was basically my mantra in high school.

With more property in the city, wouldn't there be more tax money available?

Eh, except a lot of that property is zoned commercial, and cities are in a race to the bottom to hand out tax abatements on it to attract businesses.

(Around 11-12 years ago, the teacher's union in the city of Cleveland tried to get a ballot issue going because of the White administration's tax abatement bonanza: If the city gave a property tax abatement to development or business, the portion of that tax that would have gone to the schools would have to be made up out of another part of the city budget. The result was that Mayor White declared war on the teachers and schools, and used city money to fund a campaign against the issue, claiming it would end tax abatements and kill business in Cleveland. Needless to say, it failed.)

There's a battle going on in my town where the mayor keeps wanting to hand out these TIFs, tax incentive financing, to companies like Bass Fuckin' Pro if they'll come build a megastore. The jobs will pay $8 an hour, schools will be denied tax dollars and the other local businesses who already sell shotguns and fishing lures will face a disadvantage with a competitor. Not a good situation.

Something to remember about rural property taxes is that the land isn't worth as much as it is closer to the city. You can buy a 5-acre spread with a 1700-SF house for $150,000, easy. Plus, property taxes are measured in mills, and in my former neck of the woods, it was mostly retirees who owned property and they weren't keen on raising millage rates for someone else's kids.

I did not go to new trier lol

Chicago does the tif thing. It's v gross

cmon guys did NO ONE like my joke

Ed Rollins has signed on as Bachmann's political adviser, which I guess means he'll run her campaign. I've been watching Rollins on TV for two decades; as Republicans go, I don't mind him. (I assume he's being well paid--he hooked up with Perot in '92, so he's not averse to lost causes.) Anyway, took him about seven minutes to start sniping at Palin, and her people of course shot back. This is good. What I'm hoping is that he's able to bait Palin into announcing.

"NEW TRIER"... CANNES... GET IT??

Rollins is a goddamned moron fwiw

He doesn't have much judgement in terms of who he'll work for, but as a commentator, he's okay.

yes max very funny

http://www.canvasprinter.com/gallery_pictures/laura_campion/images/LOLLYPOP_blue.jpg

He doesn't have much judgement in terms of who he'll work for, but as a commentator, he's okay.

I rate him as slightly more moronic/less insightful than David Gergen

I like Gergen too! They were both good all through 2008. Gergen plainly wanted Obama to win, Rollins less obviously so. I mean, I realize they're guys who'd crawl over their own grandmothers to get 90 seconds of airtime on CNN, but in terms of political analysis--horse-race stuff--they're fine.

I dunno whenever I watched their roundtables they seemed to be stating the obvious to me

like, I can read polling data and do electoral college math too

Sometimes, yeah...Having a feel for the obvious can mean "unusually well grounded" among Republican analysts.

Gergen believes in a holy land called Bipartisan Consensus, in which war crimes are forgiven and Wall Street malfeasance is ignored.

Anyway, Rollins got miffed today when Margaret Thatcher's advisers wouldn't let Palin see Milady: said she was "nuts."

I was just counting the seconds until you popped in to stomp the mushy middle.

Gergen defines DC beltway hack. If it were up to him, no one would ever get prosecuted for crimes because "it would send the wrong signal."

One thing I admired Gergen for through 2008 was that, more than anyone connected in any way with the Republican Party, he refused to much around with race--with Wright, Ayers, any of it.

"muck"

I miss the days of reasonableness too but I'm not going to define reasonableness by the standards of David Gergen, who pimps moderation like it's a laxative.

You would have been most at home in the days of reasonableness.

how do you pimp something like it is a laxative

or is "laxative" a really arcane term for a specialized type of prostitute

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.

how do you pimp something like it is a laxative

eh I dunno. Blame Gergen. And I'm hungry.

The link to the actual article is dead. Let me guess--he gave Obama a lot of Bs, an A- or two, and a C.

You would have been most at home in the days of reasonableness.

clemenza, I have no idea what your political beliefs are other than an admiration for Obama. As long as I can remember, I've lived in a culture in which calling yourself a liberal is akin to admitting to pedophilia. Plus, I live in a conservative town: I have to explain myself all the time without shouting.

When Obama does something I approve, I always post it, like I did last week regarding his rather impressive embrace of gay rights.

Oh damn, sorry. Anyway, if you can find it, it's a thorough interview in which Krugman lists every economic problem the administration faces and what it hasn't done, and Gergen, to paraphrase, going, "Well, gee, yeah, but he can't rattle any cages!"

Liberal is not the scare word up here that it is down there. One of our parties is the Liberal Party, and we've even got socialized medicine. I just don't operate in a 24-hour battleground.

And yes, I do admire Obama.

Yeah, the 24-hour news cycle is the problem. The cable news networks are full to bursting with apparatchiks like Gergen who are far more comfortable devoting twenty minutes to Rep. Weiner's "viability" and "handling of the scandal" than discussing, say, the consequences of the housing market's collapse or Wall Street. Pabulum.

in canada they can listen to rush, and neil's ayn rand lyrics, unironically. that is a political observation

No, we don't get Rush. I did listen to Hannity for a few months on satellite.

haha

we don't get rush either. they are too good at their instruments for us

I posted this over at the desolate climate change thread, but it's probably more relevant here:

Romney draws early fire from conservatives over views on climate change

“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

Then came the Club for Growth, which issued a white paper criticizing Romney. “Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws,” the report said, “including a significant one — his support of ‘global warming’ policies.”

And Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”

All this criticism, even though Romney's position on mitigating climate change is predictably weak and muddy:

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer,” he said. “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to that.”

Romney added that “it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.” He also said he does not support a cap-and-trade policy, saying it would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the world. “We don’t call it ‘America warming,’ ” he said. “We call it ‘global warming.’ ”

But it was his line that “humans contribute” that sparked the conservative backlash.

"I didn't do it, why should I pay for it?" is a pretty piss-poor rallying cry.

uh, have you been to America recently

that is practically the country's motto now

it's also a piss-poor rallying cry when you did do it

Rush: "The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax"

I'm assuming here that he's talking about "Climategate". The media did a great job in covering the bogus allegations but accidentally forgot to cover the repeated exonerations.

Santorum weighs in:

"I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 -- which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas -- is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd."

"...To me this is an opportunity for the left to create -- it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'"

"...It's just an excuse for more government control of your life," he added, "and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative."

good Christ what a dumbass that guy is

Rick Santorum, sciencifier

I get that it's easy and satisfying to accuse the other side of malicious intentions, but it's downright stupid to imply that liberals are in favor of government regulation for mere shits and giggles.

it is something stupid that a lot of people believe

it's because we are all such huge Warren G fans

I am!

http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/Warren-G-Harding-Laddie-Boy-10.jpg

"...To me this is an opportunity for the left to create -- it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It's been on a warming trend so they said, 'Oh, let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'"

this scheme is so elaborate, and so perfectly executed, that we managed to convince the National Academy of Science-equivalents in 32 countries to collaborate with us on the hoax!

Climate scientists in Cameroon are positively GIDDY at the thought of increasing regulation in the United States!

the public, by and large, now thinks that government retrenchment will fix unemployment, rather than make it worse. it also thinks "the jury is out" on climate change evidence at best, to thinking it's a communist plot at worst, with the "climategate" emails blowing the whole thing open.

i'm not a vanguardist of any kind, and i have serious doubts about anybody's ability to change mass minds about those two things, i guess we're just going to endure these things getting worse until some kind of reality principle kicks in.

ZS that last statement doesn't seem out of character for any number of not-even-fringey right-wing writers, let alone all-cap commenters...

anyway, ricky shitstain is just keeping up his brand, he's got a lot of competition for the loser standard bearer of the virtuous and pure these days

ZS, the comments on Corner posts are full of that stuff!

really? I guess the argument would be that other countries want the U.S. to increase regulation because that will inevitably hasten our downfall, and everyone is out to destroy us?

yup, climate change = an internationalist plot to funnel wealth from industrial countries to the third world, 'colonial reparations' with a fake-science cover to fool the sheeple.

i mean...it's just so stupid, i can't even...i just...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

stupid like a FOX

what's up with those fingernails

i am just going to shift to the opinion that the corner is actually an incredibly elaborate practical joke implemented by bill murray

polish change?

xpost

i swear i read some 'debate' about climate change where the denier basically demanded any proof based on data that came from non-government sources, since those were all in on the scam.

multi-xpost

Those ideas were implanted in the mass mind, so it is not implausible that a similar campaign could implant a different set of ideas. What is implausible is that the owners of the mass media will change positions on these issues in the foreseeable future.

As for a reality principle kicking in, the sad thing is that reality doesn't often with an incontrovertible explanation, so that reality itself cannot refute such ideas very effectively. Mass delusions are remarkably easy to maintain.

I honestly think the fact that they've backed themselves into crazycorner w/ this issue is going to benefit us in the long-term, the only problem is uh "long-term"

democrats are the party of slavery!!!!!

amen to that

*weirdfingernailsguy.jpg*

I honestly think the fact that they've backed themselves into crazycorner w/ this issue is going to benefit us in the long-term,

have the Dems proven in the last two years that they know how anything benefits them long-term?

Substantive Wall street regulation, universal health care, stronger congressional oversight of the Chief Executive's war powers – all these affect us long term!

stress reducer for u guys: already too late to stop climate change

Substantive Wall street regulation, universal health care, stronger congressional oversight of the Chief Executive's war powers – all these affect us long term!

yeah but w/ this one we don't even have to do anything to be proven right

pretty nifty

rip world etc

stress reducer for u guys: already too late to stop climate change

helpful as always

mitigating impacts might be a good idea tho

give FEMA your lifejacket size in 2028

stress reducer for u guys: already too late to stop climate change

not too late to make it less bad. i'd rather get punched in the face than have my arms ripped off

yeah, I think pointing out the truth is 'casionally helpful

xp

the public, by and large, now thinks that government retrenchment will fix unemployment, rather than make it worse. it also thinks "the jury is out" on climate change evidence at best, to thinking it's a communist plot at worst, with the "climategate" emails blowing the whole thing open.

simpler explanation: the public doesn't want to deal with climate change or really anything that upsets the status quo; since shit seems to be getting worse anyway, why not take care of things that suck right now? or maybe better yet, not deal with it at all. I mean is this really all that surprising a reaction? who likes dealing with problems that are long in the future?

but the public doesn't want to explore the issue long enough to understand that the current idea for 'taking care of things that suck right now' is actually going to make things suck more

Not too long in the future, if you ask people in Tuscaloosa, Joplin and Smithville. xp

that said we're already at the point where climate change is something that sucks right now xp right

the ~~~public~~~ hears that climate change is gonna be bad & doesn't want to explore the issue any further

I mean if you were at the doctor & he was like, "uh you need to change your habits or you're gonna die in like 60 years", I can see ignoring that rather than exploring the issue further

yeah well one of the problems with "accepting" climate change is that the weather in large parts of the USA already sucks pretty much all the time.

Newt's staff resigned.

drudgesiren.gif

citing differences with the direction of the campaign

does this mean he wanted to be more crazy or less crazy

The literati's minions strike again.

So bizarre--he does the Mario Cuomo thing for two decades, positioning himself as forever waiting in the wings for that moment when his party rolls out the red carpet for him to run, and then when he actually does run, he launches what looks to be a campaign of Hall of Fame dimensions in terms of its ineptitude.

this is not really that bizarre given we're talking about Newt Gingrich

I was going to say that I can understand their choice - working on a campaign with absolutely no hope of winning, this far away from the election, and with a total asshole as your candidate, has gotta be demoralizing. Then I remembered that pretty much applies to every Republican candidate, somehow

"Gingrich's decision to take a recent cruise in the Caribbean with his wife may have contributed to the break-up, sources said."

This means that Gingrich will reform his staff and sweep to the nomination easily.

"Congressman Weiner's decision not to take a recent cruise in the Caribbean with his wife may have contributed to the break-up, other sources said."

sweep to the nomination easily

...says the press release Newt had to write himself.

ok, lol jonathan chait

"Gingrich Approval Rating Down To 0% Among Gingrich Staffers"

lol

Rick Perry to Fox News: "Ready for launch"

Perry got the thumbs up from the Texas moneymen whose support he sought before launching a campaign

This is to be expected, yet this phrase makes me a little nauseous.

Also, oh yay:

Perry has a reputation as a policy lightweight, but he knows how to fire up a crowd...

That dude scares me more than most in terms of likelihood, someone tell me why hes got no chance

I got nothin

Perry reminds me of many of those fake, vaguely incompetent fictional southern presidents you always see in the movies.

ummm....

You remember the last guy, right?

D-40, here's an article on why Perry may have problems, but it's really not very critical.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0610/Texas-Gov.-Rick-Perry-for-president-Why-he-could-have-a-hard-time

Didnt Perry basically bankrupt Texas in the spirit of tax cuts and all that GOP bullshit?

anybody who gets the GOP nom next year has a good chance, people who're very anxious for Obama to win should actively be working for the weakest GOP primary candidates imo

anybody who gets the GOP nom next year has a good chance

um... no

well if Shakey Mo Collier gets it all bets are off but of the plausibles, absolutely

dunno why you think that - Obama's going to have more money, GOP is hopelessly fractured (wouldn't be surprised if there's a third-party challenger out of all this, esp if Romney gets the nom), Fox doesn't have a horse in the game, Obama's approval rating is in good shape, GOP is in race to the bottom to destroy all political credibility this summer, etc.

If the economy keeps tanking, there will be issues.

Unless of course the nominee ends up being Newt.

I'm surprised Perry is close to running. Who was the last legit GOP presidential candidate who had to deal with rumors about his sexual orientation?

shakey you are a little bit optimistic there

eh not really, I'm not going to vote for him

by all means get back to me in a year, but none of the GOP crop have a prayer for pretty significant institutional reasons imho

If the economy keeps tanking, there will be issues.

^^^

unemployment + economy are all that's ever going to matter. 10% of the fucking country didn't have a job in February. That's down to 8.6 but when Bush left office it was 5.4. Either the Democrats figure out a way to get that figure cut in half or it's game over for election 2012.

the new nerd meme is that its not the employment figure, its the rate of change in employment figure

I am a nerd meme believer but I don't think most of the American public shares our enthusiasm for nerd memes

the really weird dynamic is that it's the dem base that has suffered the most in the past 4 years. whether that will blunt the effect of a shitty economy on the incumbent (rage at the bankers) or make it worse (lack of enthusiasm), who knows. obama does not have this in the bag.

you guys are crazy

you live in california

btw if you're not down with google.com/publicdata and you wanna look at graphs you are missing out, the one on unemployment from '90 to the present is spectacular

oh cool

hans rosling, call your agent

you live in california

lol have you looked at our unemployment rate lately?

(and yet the state GOP is still vastly unpopular!)

how does that work I wonder

Clearly the problem as of late has been that too many Americans are employed. We need higher unemployment, to prime the pump of all those future entrepreneurs and garage-born computer moguls who will in turn spark the next big bubble. Obama should run on this.

(Truth be told, population has already bought into so much unbelievable bullshit that 'Bama might as well embrace the ridiculous and glean the benefits.)

Shakey OTM, whatever's true in California is generally true for the rest of the country, you can always gauge the national mood by how shit's goin down in California

didn't there used to be rick perry = gay rumors?

Shakey is right: the election is Obama's to lose. But David Gergen types insist that the public must "feel as if things are getting better" even when things aren't (in '84 unemployment was still almost 7.2%), and if this voodoo pop psychology is correct, Obama's not looking well.

I think a reasonably competent Obama campaign will be able to successfully paint any Republican nominee as an uncaring monster who wants to wear your granny's skin as a vest and drink your baby's blood.

I wish it were Obama's to lose, but I don't think you can say one way or another until the Republicans have a nominee. If Romney were to miraculously navigate his way to the nomination--I've changed my thinking on that, I'm now more inclined to think that he's as much of a longshot as everybody else thinks he is--I'd say Obama's in big trouble. Even if you think Romney's an empty suit, the one thing he's not is scary. His penchant for "evolving positions" could even help him--at this point, I don't know that people believe anything he says, so I could see a lot of independents saying, "Well, he just said that because he had to--he doesn't actually intend to follow through." I could easily see Obama losing to Romney in a still-flat economy. On the other hand, obviously there are Republicans running right now who aren't going to beat Obama under any circumstances. Somewhere in the middle, Pawlenty. I don't know if he'd beat Obama or not.

unemployment + economy are all that's ever going to matter. 10% of the fucking country didn't have a job in February. That's down to 8.6 but when Bush left office it was 5.4. Either the Democrats figure out a way to get that figure cut in half or it's game over for election 2012.

― brad whitford, witchfynder general (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, June 10, 2011 5:52 PM (4 hours ago)

I dunno what numbers you're looking at but it was way higher than 5.4 when obama entered office. also the official number is 9.1 atm. "cut in half" is...basically impossible at this point. 'under 8' would be a more realistic prayer-target.

sorry yr right I got pretty caught up in running states vs. nat'l over time on the public data, I think I was looking at Iowa when I caught those low numbers. 8.5 nationally in Jan. 2009, 8.7 as of today. 13.009 million unemployed when Bush left office, 13.421 million today.

8.6%

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1307108139

U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number.
U-6 unemployment rate includes short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time
Before 1994, the broadest unemployment rate also included the long-term discouraged. For about a decade now John Williams at shadowstats has been estimating the long-term discouraged from the labor-force participation/working age population ratio, so that post 1994 rates could be compared on an apples to apples basis.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/charts/employment/employment-participation-rates.gif

monthly headline number is 9.1 tho

for june

I like "long-term discouraged" as a spiritual term on a spectrum running from enlightened on one end down through agnostic, atheist, finally arriving at the promised land of long-term discouraged

^this is an awesome post

And on that note I will once again run scared from the political thread, other than to say that if pawlenty gets a shot at the national stage I as a proud mn dude will get so angry that I cry tears of blood

This is also true of Bachmann but that nom is impossible to imagine once you have stared into her terrifying soulless crazy person eyes so I am less worries about that

Debate tonight. I'm expecting all participants will be wearing either a "Crazy" or "Not Crazy" button to help viewers at home. (Right beside their "Heil Obama" button.)

are we gonna have a separate debate thread

man I don't know if I'm up for watching this thing

is Fred Thompson in this thing

otherwise no

tons of these guys eclipse Thompson on the lolscale - Herman Cain for one, Santorum for another

Well, I respected Thompson's talent for saying the right things to his audience while napping at the same time.

looking forward to Cain notching up another debate win.

here we go guys!!!!!

oh man the mic can barely handle bachmann's voice without distorting.

so far we've learned that they all love children

lol Sully:

7.57 pm. No one is better at pure, grade-A conventional wisdom than David Gergen. When was the last time he surprised you with anything he said?

Ezra Klein:

Bachmann is a better politician than Palin, a better policy wonk than Palin, and because she’s a better politician and a better policy wonk than Palin, she’s actually able to be a bit more extreme than Palin, as Palin rarely gets specific enough to do such precise ideological positioning. Put simply, Bachmann is the candidate Palin was supposed to be.

pro-growth agenda!

what the hell is this debate format? 30 second answers?

lol Newt is so toast, wrong decade m'man, thanks for playing

whoa michele wtf

i'm not watching, but, yes indeed, whoa michele wtf

How the devil would these people want "the government" to "create" jobs when no candidate believes in government per se?

ohhhhhh stuff

nobody is going to remember anything else that was said in the debate

ron paul is comin in w/gold standard, go you crazy man go

Tried. Can't do it. Oh look, 27 Dresses is on.

Really disappointed Jon Huntsman isn't here.

guys you realize there will be soooo many more debates and speeches of bachmann saying 'as president of the united states, i will ...."

O_O

makes my brain hurt.

kucinich always used to talk the same way

"when im president"

has Fred Thompson awakened yet?

Obama's watching this and feeling like a boxer watching tape of some undercard bum he's gonna get a nice cakewalk against

I haven't seen him since 2009, now that I think about it.

Oh wait, he was on an episode of The Good Wife. xp

pawlenty looking like a total wuss here

afraid to challenge Mitt Romney for realz?

can ailes step in and give bachmann the 5pm timeslot in lieu of being president

lol at Jon King calling him out.

T-Paw getting grilled

I was gonna say "masochists," but it's not like a Democratic debate is gonna happen in the Citizens United States of America. So enjoy your doomsday vaudeville.

http://dailymuckraker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tim-pawlenty.bmp

how the fuck can you get pwned by Mitt on his weakest issue like that?

ok wtf is that noise??! holy shit is john king gonna tut and mutter through this whole debate??

romney is not a great liar

how'd he get this far in politics

So enjoy your doomsday vaudeville.

I will, thanks. Fun tv.

respect to newt for being real about repealing "obamacare"

Audience questioner looks like a pudgy V. Putin.

I like that audience guy. Let him run!

King Tuts

yeah i like the audience guy too. rick is ignoring his question isn't he?

Audience guy not liking being grouped with "the left" by Bachmann while still standing there.

"Republicans have an awesome story to tell"

Audience guy not amused by zig zag answers.

bachmann's got them fired up, ready to go!

http://politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/

Haven't people learned from the most recent batch of "I'm not a politician, I'm a businessman!" GOP governors that those guys turn out to be incompetent a-holes?

tea party debate September 12th on CNN we are doomed

oh god, the day after the 10th anniversary of 9/11?

the "patriotism" will run thick.

Agree with Pawlenty about the inequity of fair trade, btw.

paw is for fair trade and loves unions, dope

Wow, Bachmann not afraid to identify herself with words "federal" "tax" and "lawyer" in same clause.

at least Ron Paul is being maddeningly consistent.

oh man romney's going to have to pick bachmann as his vp candidate isn't he.

unless forces conspire to stop romney and we get pawlenty (this was my bet initially) and he can't pick another minnesotan

Set the capital gains tax to 0% for five years? Ooooookay, Santorum.

bachmann has enough cred with the base that she can say whatever she wants imo

re pawlenty strategery of not repeating 'obamneycare'
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/06/13/pawlenty-the-careful-attacker.aspx