OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Hobie]Obama does not have a viable energy policy.[/quote]

I agree, but no president has ever had a viable energy policy.

And no one running in this election has one either.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]Yeah. He could have and should have passed real health care reform. He (and some Senate Dems) negotiated against themselves, knowing full well that not a single Republican would support a bill that he put forward anyway. He (and they, primarily Max Baucus) continued to negotiate, it got worse and worse, and not a single republican voted for it. Surprise![/quote]

Ok, I’ll give that one half a point. I agree that he probably made strategic mistakes during the negotiations. We know this in hindsight, and perhaps Obama could have known better during the negotiations.

But he passed a major healthcare reform bill against the most fanatic opposition we have seen in decades. He should get some credit for that.

And I think it’s progress. The legislation may be imperfect, but it now forces the healthcare debate onto the table. The choices moving forward are: Repeal it (which even the clueless public will realize puts us back to square one) or fix it by moving toward genuine single payer. I call that a step forward.

[briansd1]

[quote=pri_dk] Repeal it (which even the clueless public will realize puts us back to square one) or fix it by moving toward genuine single payer. I call that a step forward.[/quote]

I think Allan said that democracy is a messy process. America is about making progress in fits and starts.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Obama’s main failure was to not invoke the memories of George W. Bush every day.

Now that people have forgotten GWB, they have begun to think that every problem we face today has been created by Obama and they have began finding GWB’s clones attractive again!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Obama’s main failure was to not invoke the memories of George W. Bush every day.

Now that people have forgotten GWB, they have begun to think that every problem we face today has been created by Obama and they have began finding GWB’s clones attractive again![/quote]

Oh, he invoked the memories of Dubya every single day and he did so by continuing Bush II’s reprehensible policies, including rendition, Patriot I/II and supporting further erosion of American rights and civil liberties.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, don’t they?

Obama decried Dubya on the campaign trail and then turned around and got right into lockstep with Bush Administration policies in the false “War on Terror”. In the case of civil liberties, he’s actually accelerated the erosion.

Why invoke Dubya when you can simply pick up where he left off? Although that probably wasn’t where you were going with that, was it?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=zk]I’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.[/quote]

All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul would not only steal many votes from the Republicans but there are a ton of independents and liberals out there dying for another option. All he needs is 34%+ in a 3 man race![/quote]

Oh markmax33, what are we going to do with you? He doesn’t need 34%+, he needs 290. Just like every elected president in the last 50 years. I thought the constitution was important to you.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Oh markmax33, what are we going to do with you? He doesn’t need 34%+, he needs 290. Just like every elected president in the last 50 years. I thought the constitution was important to you.[/quote]
I thought it’s 270. Since there’s 538 electorates and there are currently only 2 real parties, to get the majority, it’s 270. If you don’t get 270, then the 12th amendment kicks in and the House decide the winner. What we never had was a viable 3rd party candidate. What would happen if one get 181, one get 180, and one get 177? Does it still go to the House or does the one with the majority (181) win?

[SK in CV]

dup

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Oh markmax33, what are we going to do with you? He doesn’t need 34%+, he needs 290. Just like every elected president in the last 50 years. I thought the constitution was important to you.[/quote]
I thought it’s 270. Since there’s 538 electorates and there are currently only 2 real parties, to get the majority, it’s 270. If you don’t get 270, then the 12th amendment kicks in and the House decide the winner. What we never had was a viable 3rd party candidate. What would happen if one get 181, one get 180, and one get 177? Does it still go to the House or does the one with the majority (181) win?[/quote]

Typo. Yes, half plus 1 of 538. It’s 270. Irrespective of how many candidates. Goes to the house, the house decides. And as a practical matter, even if RP got 250, the house wouldn’t vote for him.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Typo. Yes, half plus 1 of 538. It’s 270. Irrespective of how many candidates. Goes to the house, the house decides. And as a practical matter, even if RP got 250, the house wouldn’t vote for him.[/quote]
Good to know, thanks. I always thought it’s 270 because that’s majority for 2 parties system.

[zk]

[quote=markmax33][quote=zk]I’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.[/quote]

All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul would not only steal many votes from the Republicans but there are a ton of independents and liberals out there dying for another option. All he needs is 34%+ in a 3 man race![/quote]

markmax, you’ve clearly got a lot of time and energy for this, and that’s admirable. But if you really want to help Ron Paul, you have to stay closer to reality (“All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate” – Really?) and also get your facts straight. And, while I’m on the subject, stay away from the sweeping, incorrect proclamations that you sometimes make. One characteristic of successful campaigning is to get people to want to be with you, be on your side. You, for the most part, are not doing that. You come across as an abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all. For Ron Paul’s sake, tone it down a bit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: You need to read Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Salon today regarding Obama and the indefinite detention bill:http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

You cannot help but find this absolutely chilling. Given Obama’s background on Constitional Law, there is NO SINGLE REASON that can be reasonably provided to support this. NONE. NOT ONE. I don’t give a shit about being “soft on terror” or practical reasons. Obama lied, pure and simple, regarding the protection of civil liberties and is now signing this piece of shit legislation, after EXPRESSLY PROMISING he wouldn’t.

If you can offer a single, rational explanation for this, I’d like to hear it.[/quote]

I find it chilling also. But what you and I think really doesn’t matter.

Fox news has 60% of the country.

What % does it take to win an election?

He broke a promise? All politicians do that. He’s going to run against Gingrich for cricksakes!

American voters forgive liars. They don’t forgive weaklings.

I remember the 1980 election. Carter kept “negotiating” with Iran and Reagan was going to nuke ’em, right? These “facts” were the reason why many people voted for Reagan.

“Weak” American presidents are single-term Presidents.

The rational explanation: Obama has read a few history books.[/quote]

Pri: So, if I understand you correctly, its perfectly okay for Obama to do this, because its in the best interests of the country?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: So, if I understand you correctly, its perfectly okay for Obama to do this, because its in the best interests of the country?[/quote]

I provided a rational explanation for Obama’s choices. That’s what you asked for.

I did not attempt to provide an ethical justification.

I’m not making any statement about what is “okay” (ethically) or what is “best” for the country.

As for the ethical part of the question, I honestly don’t know the answer.

I am not able to frame this issue in the simple terms that you pose in your question. Obama is not presented a simple choice of “yes or no” on civil liberties.

99.9% of NDAA has nothing to do with civil liberties. So should he veto the entire defense budget because of one part he doesn’t like? Can we afford another round and a new episode of budget gridlock? What would Obama accomplish by holding up the defense budget as he battled the other 369 senators and congressmen (in BOTH parties) that voted in favor of the bill?

So what is “best for the country?” I don’t know. But I do know that the choices to veto/not veto are extremely complicated and impact numerous other aspects of our government, including the budget, the economy, national defense, and ultimately who will be president in 2013.

Obama does not have the option of isolating the civil liberties questions from other politically-charged issues. That’s how our government works, the opposition is doing everything they can to make this situation particularly thorny, and the public doesn’t have a clue about what the Bill of Rights really is about.

The Penn/State Paterno situation was black and white – there were simple choices that were clearly right and clearly wrong. Obama’s situation is nowhere near as simple.

I can’t say what Obama is doing are clearly the right choices, but there are plenty of good arguments that support the idea that he is not making terribly wrong choices either.

But in the end, the only choice that I have is my vote – a choice I have to make from a limited field of alternatives. Given the alternatives that we see this point, I will likely choose Obama. And I respect whatever choice you make as well.

[beselfish]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=SK in CV]He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. [/quote]

Can either of you guys provide specific examples of these missed opportunities, such as “he should have done A but choose to do B?” – things he could have realistically accomplished given the opposition he has faced from the Republicans?

I hear this sort of general criticism a lot these days, but I rarely hear specifics.
[/quote]

In my mind, the most striking and damning of Barack Hussein’s many failures and missed opportunities was what he signed into law in Feb 09 just shy of a month on the job. By signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama gave away the keys to $787+ billion to Reid and Pelosi of what could have been meaningful spending. Where was the Republican opposition then? How quickly you seem to forget the composition of the 111th. Remember, Obama rose to power with a formidable congressional majority which few modern presidents have enjoyed (59-41 in the Senate–not fillibuster-proof, but still dominant; and a commanding 76 seat majority in the House.)

In the ARRA, Obama showed his first of many failures to take bold leadership. If Obama were indeed the embodiment of hope and change, and an effective game-changer in Washington, he would not deferred such large and consequential decision-making to congressional leaders. Instead of demanding a few landmark “in-your-face” spending programs we could actually see, Obama let congress piece together a pork-stuffed, questionably effective bill chock-full of business-as-usual earmarks and giveaways. And to those who argue it saved state and local government jobs, look at the monthly BLS employment situation reports over the past 18+ months, and try telling me how many state and local jobs it actually “saved.”

Had the $787 billion been spent strategically on a select few national priorities, we could have made a meaningful down payment on real long term job-creating infrastructure programs: repairing, upgrading, or replacing thousands of bridges, highways, and airports; installing large-scale national wind and solar farms and assisting with clearing permits and speeding environmental review; building a few meaningful high speed and intercity rail lines where they actually matter, and building them with the same commitment and fervor as something like what we got out of the Highway Act of ’56.

[svelte]

[quote=beselfish]
In my mind, the most striking and damning of Barack Hussein’s many failures…[/quote]

And that single childish name-calling devalues your post enough to cause me to read no farther…

[Author]

Posts