PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So Newt's threatening to forgo any future debates that don't let the audience cheer/boo freely. Hate to say it, but I'm with Newt on this issue, if only cause I'm willing to take any help, any motivation possible to rile up tea baggers in his favor.
 
Looks like those Geithner rumors were true.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Bloomberg TV that President Obama is "not going to ask me to stay on, I'm pretty confident. I'm confident he'll be president. But I'm also confident he's going to have the privilege of having another secretary of the Treasury.
 
So Newt's threatening to forgo any future debates that don't let the audience cheer/boo freely. Hate to say it, but I'm with Newt on this issue, if only cause I'm willing to take any help, any motivation possible to rile up tea baggers in his favor.
I'm all for it in a more serious way, I've got nothing against a little bit of cheering and clapping.
 
The distinction you're not sure exists is the one you've been talking about? Can't imagine why that was unclear.

Hang on, you're still wrong.

And if Reid had the opportunity to change something and waited until he was taken to task in SOTU, I don't see any reason to be optimistic about changes to the filibuster going forward.
I am equally pessimistic about the prospects for reform. Barring an exogenous shock, Senators will never cede individual power. Now, this kerfuffle over recess appointments may eventually force an institutional crisis in which the Senate feels compelled to act. But I'm sure they'll enact a worthless measure to obviate that.
I'm all for it in a more serious way, I've got nothing against a little bit of cheering and clapping.
I prefer the audience refrain from interjecting. The debates should focus on the candidates. Otherwise, they interrupt the flow of the debate.
 
I prefer the audience refrain from interjecting. The debates should focus on the candidates. Otherwise, they interrupt the flow of the debate.
I have to disagree. I think taking the people's reaction out of it creates an unnatural, sterile environment. Why not allow the people to react naturally to what a candidate is saying? Shouldn't that be part of the natural flow? I can't imagine telling the crowds at the Lincoln-Douglas debates that they weren't allowed to make a sound. I think as long as the audience allows the candidates to speak, they should be permitted to laugh or clap or vomit in their sleeves.
 
rowdier crowd=>better chances for Newt to get the nomination=>all of the Republican tickets get torpedoed.

Sure it might not help the discourse of ideas in the debate but these candidates have so little substance to anything they say that we may as well have Jerry Springer moderate.
 
The distinction you're not sure exists is the one you've been talking about? Can't imagine why that was unclear.

Hang on, you're still wrong.

And if Reid had the opportunity to change something and waited until he was taken to task in SOTU, I don't see any reason to be optimistic about changes to the filibuster going forward.
Um, what? I've only been talking about legislative benefits from the get-go, not judicial nominees. The politics of judicial appointments is different from passing legislation (see: Gang of 14 back in '06).

Anyway, here's that article from Jonathan Bernstein on the matter.

As I've said before, if Democrats retake the House, hold the Senate and the Presidency, then either Obama or Reid is going to have to convince the other that it has to be done. Judging from the SOTU, it's going to be Obama. Pelosi will definitely push for it because she doesn't like having her caucus vote on tough legislation only for it to have to die in the Senate.

That, or we'll be seeing a heavier, more liberal use of reconciliation.

And even if we don't see any change in 2012, it's going to come eventually.
 
Washington Post said:
Liberal groups join ad war on Romney

Newt Gingrich isn’t the only one trying to beat Mitt Romney in Florida.

Several liberal groups are funding new ad campaigns in the Sunshine State targeting the vulnerable GOP presidential candidate, part of an unusually bold effort by Democratic supporters to bolster President Obama’s chances in November by influencing the Republican primaries.

The plans include a $1 million ad buy from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation’s largest public employee union, which is focusing on Romney’s history as head of the private-equity firm Bain Capital. The Service Employees International Union and Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, have also jointly launched a Spanish-language radio campaign in Florida accusing Romney of having “two faces” on immigration issues.

The push signals a growing belief among Democrats that they may have a real chance at helping to derail Romney, who has long been viewed as Obama’s most formidable GOP opponent but is reeling from a loss to Gingrich in South Carolina. Gingrich and Romney are locked in a tight race ahead of Tuesday’s Florida primary.

While unions and other groups commonly run political ads supporting their candidates in the general election, this is something different — an unusually direct intervention by one side into the other party’s primary race, political strategists said.

“The target of opportunity presented itself, and we decided to take advantage of it,” said Seth Johnson, assistant director in -AFSCME’s political action department. “Before South Carolina and after South Carolina, Mitt Romney is still the front-runner. We thought it was a good time to educate Florida voters about his record.”

Johnson added that it was “a pretty rare occurrence” for the union to get involved in a Republican primary.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the efforts were part of an “all hands on deck” strategy by Democrats to “kill Romney” in the same way Obama targeted Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.

“The last thing the White House wants is Mitt Romney as an opponent,” Saul said, adding that Obama “is desperate to distract from his failed economic record.”

For months, Democrats and affiliated groups have focused their attacks almost exclusively on Romney as the presumed GOP rival to Obama, largely ignoring Gingrich, Rick Santorum and other Republican hopefuls. The efforts have included news conferences, Web videos and other tactics aimed at getting news coverage.

But until now, pro-Democratic groups have bought relatively few broadcast ads during the GOP primary season, which has been dominated by spending from conservative groups backing Romney or opposing Obama, according to expenditure data. One pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, has spent $5 million in Florida, according to the Federal Election Commission.

“There’s no doubt he’s put his campaign in the weakest position it’s been in months,” Bill Burton, a Priorities USA spokesman and former White House aide, said in regard to Romney.

The AFSCME ad compares Romney to Rick Scott (R), the unpopular Florida governor who headed a hospital conglomerate prosecuted for Medicare fraud in the 1990s. The message dovetails with criticism this week from Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC that plans to run as much as $10 million worth of ads against Romney in Florida.

The AFSCME spot, running in Tampa, Orlando and West Palm Beach, focuses on Damon Corp., a medical testing firm that was prosecuted for Medicare fraud committed while it was owned by Bain Capital, which was then headed by Romney.

The ad shows Romney morphing into Scott with the words: “Corporate greed. Medicare fraud. Sound familiar?”

The radio ad from Priorities USA and SEIU focuses on Romney’s Spanish-language advertising and other outreach efforts with Hispanic voters in Florida, which the groups call “insincere and disingenuous.”

Romney has taken a hard line on border policies during the primaries and has vowed to veto the Dream Act, a bill that would create a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who are college students and military service members. He and Gingrich are both vying for support among the state’s large Hispanic bloc, including its influential Cuban American population.

“Mitt Romney has no shame,” the SEIU radio ad’s narrator says in Spanish. “He shows one face to the Hispanic community and another, completely different one to everyone else.”

Eliseo Medina, SEIU’s secretary-treasurer, said Romney “happens to be the one who went beyond the pale with his recent comments. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum shouldn’t feel neglected. As the campaign goes on, we will be evaluating them, too.”

Broadcast ads aren’t the only tactic available to Democratic-aligned groups hoping to influence the Republican contest. American Bridge for the 21st Century, a liberal super PAC that focuses mostly on opposition research, blanketed Columbia, S.C., with hundreds of hot-pink leaflets trumpeting Romney’s support for gay rights during the Massachusetts phase of his political career.

The group said the leafleting was aimed at sowing doubts among Republicans in the state about Romney’s conservative bona fides.

“It’s not that we were trying to portray him as a quote-unquote liberal, but to show that he’s flip-flopped on so many key issues,” American Bridge spokesman Ty Matsdorf said. “It’s highlighting his lack of core beliefs.”

eggend@washpost.com

Staff writer T.W. Farnam contributed to this report.
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c....012/01/24/gIQAYY5tQQ_mobile.mobile&cid=578815
 
I have to disagree. I think taking the people's reaction out of it creates an unnatural, sterile environment. Why not allow the people to react naturally to what a candidate is saying? Shouldn't that be part of the natural flow? I can't imagine telling the crowds at the Lincoln-Douglas debates that they weren't allowed to make a sound. I think as long as the audience allows the candidates to speak, they should be permitted to laugh or clap or vomit in their sleeves.
When you have audience members clapping in response to questions dealing with people dying, because they cannot afford insurance, or the audience booing a gay soldier, then I think refraining from clapping is a good idea.
 
I have to disagree. I think taking the people's reaction out of it creates an unnatural, sterile environment. Why not allow the people to react naturally to what a candidate is saying? Shouldn't that be part of the natural flow? I can't imagine telling the crowds at the Lincoln-Douglas debates that they weren't allowed to make a sound. I think as long as the audience allows the candidates to speak, they should be permitted to laugh or clap or vomit in their sleeves.
It's a political debate, not a WWE event.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I liked the debate last time. Moderation was mostly good (minus the scrappy fight between the front runners. ) and not having the audience distractions let the candidates articulate their points without having to worry about riling up the crowd. It also helps to only get to the meat of the argument, not merely throwing meat to wolves.
 
Concord becomes the home base for any candidacy. Candidates vying for the "Gentlemen, start your engines" at the Coca-Cola 600, clamoring to get their name spelled out in the stands with placards, etc. Would be a fun "race" to watch.
State of the Union 2013, brought to you by Applebee's.
 
I predicted this one:

Texans didn’t think much of Rick Perry’s presidential bid either.

Gov. Perry's disastrous campaign pulled his job approval down in his home state below even President Obama’s and a plurality of Texans think that his campaign hurt the state’s image, according to a poll by the Dallas Morning News.

Indeed, only 40 percent of Texans approve of Perry’s job performance - his lowest rating in over a decade - and weaker than Obama’s approval rating of 43 percent, according to the survey. An additional 40 percent disapprove of Perry’s job performance.

In addition, while 48 percent of Texans felt that their view of Perry remained unchanged, 37 percent said that they viewed him less favorably after his bid for president.

Now a majority of Texans, 53 percent, think that Perry should not run for another term as governor in 2014, compared to 34 percent who think he should.

One year ago, 61 percent of Texans said that they did not want Perry to run for president, even though about half of all adults approved of the job he was doing as governor.

Regardless, Perry launched a presidential campaign in August 2011 and despite a promising start ended up flailing due to a series of gaffes, including the infamous “oops” incident during a debate in November.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71996.html#ixzz1kZye907m
 
This exchange cracks me up ..

(Radio Talk Show Host)INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
It is honest. But it also highlights the fact that he's going to be campaigning on the economic failures of the administration even though he's acknowledged things are getting better.
To not acknowledge the growth would be disingenuous and insulting to independents who actually look at facts, rather than hard-right repubs who revel in stereotypes and misinformation.

He will campaign on the president's actions, along with a democratic congress's missteps, have slowed growth, lengthened and deepened the recession and prevented further economic growth from happening.

Whether or not that is disingenuous or not is more of a matter of opinion, rather than numbers-on-a-paper fact.
 
I have to disagree. I think taking the people's reaction out of it creates an unnatural, sterile environment. Why not allow the people to react naturally to what a candidate is saying? Shouldn't that be part of the natural flow? I can't imagine telling the crowds at the Lincoln-Douglas debates that they weren't allowed to make a sound. I think as long as the audience allows the candidates to speak, they should be permitted to laugh or clap or vomit in their sleeves.
I suppose the environment could seem sterile. But I think that's necessary to allow the candidates to completely articulate their points. Otherwise, as we've witnessed repeatedly, the crowd interjects itself and disrupts the exchanges.
 
To not acknowledge the growth would be disingenuous and insulting to independents who actually look at facts, rather than hard-right repubs who revel in stereotypes and misinformation.

He will campaign on the president's actions, along with a democratic congress's missteps, have slowed growth, lengthened and deepened the recession and prevented further economic growth from happening.

Whether or not that is disingenuous or not is more of a matter of opinion, rather than numbers-on-a-paper fact.
After the midterms, I don't think any republican candidate can blame congress for things being worse unless they want to openly blame themselves for slowing growth.

But you're right. It's just that the words "genuine" and "Mitt Romney" are rarely used in the same sentence.
 
Romney is going to win Florida. Momemntum is in his favor right now looking at polls. He has been inching up this past week in every poll with most showing him in the lead again. Especially since the last debate. Newt will have to pull out one hell of a debate performance to turn this around again (which isn't impossible, he has done it before). But with early voting and the election so soon after the debate I think Romney will pull it off and become the defacto nominee. It'll be close though.
 
Momentum can swing at any moment.

Besides, what's really interesting is that while Romney's gaining in Florida, Gingrich is still gaining nationally.
Nationally doesn't matter too much, if Romney wins Florida the race is over. Remember Hillary caught up to Obama nationally in the daily gallup polls and passed him by 1-2% once in a while even long after every sane person knew Obama was the nominee.
 
Nationally doesn't matter too much, if Romney wins Florida the race is over. Remember Hillary caught up to Obama nationally in the daily gallup polls and passed him by 1-2% once in a while even long after every sane person knew Obama was the nominee.
We can still reap the benefit of Gingrich not knowing he's beat and going scorched earth until he completely runs out of money.
 
We can still reap the benefit of Gingrich not knowing he's beat and going scorched earth until he completely runs out of money.
It would be nice but if Romney wins Florida I expect the only two candidates left post-Super Tuesday would be Romney (and Paul lol) and the general election would be starting up.
 
To not acknowledge the growth would be disingenuous and insulting to independents who actually look at facts, rather than hard-right repubs who revel in stereotypes and misinformation.

He will campaign on the president's actions, along with a democratic congress's missteps, have slowed growth, lengthened and deepened the recession and prevented further economic growth from happening.

Whether or not that is disingenuous or not is more of a matter of opinion, rather than numbers-on-a-paper fact.
I couldn't find a longer clip for context on the second segment here, but Romney has said many times that Obama did make the recession worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsgsqXgVnrc

He's since been called out and denied he said it, naturally.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I couldn't find a longer clip for context on the second segment here, but Romney has said many times that Obama did make the recession worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsgsqXgVnrc

He's since been called out and denied he said it, naturally.
I am not saying that, though. I am saying that for Romney to say that the economy isn't growing would go in the face of unemployment numbers dropping, GDP gains, stock market gains etc. would be stupid. Those are hard facts, and to argue otherwise is pointless.

For him to say that Obama's policies are hurting the recovery or making the recession worse are contextual. Overall, unemployment is worse than when he took office, for example. Romney will make those cases and it is up to the general public to see when and where they fall for it.
 
"Making the recession worse," could mean that Obama prolonged the recession. Just because there is growth, doesn't immediately mean that Obama's policy instigated that growth, will be the argument's key assumption.
 
I am not saying that, though. I am saying that for Romney to say that the economy isn't growing would go in the face of unemployment numbers dropping, GDP gains, stock market gains etc. would be stupid. Those are hard facts, and to argue otherwise is pointless.

For him to say that Obama's policies are hurting the recovery or making the recession worse are contextual. Overall, unemployment is worse than when he took office, for example. Romney will make those cases and it is up to the general public to see when and where they fall for it.
I'm reminded of the cartoon of the plane in the nosedive, inches from the ground, with the caption, "You take over from here."
 
The tepid trajectory of this recovery is very similar to the time of when Bush Sr. was running for re-election. He was trying to convince people that things were getting better, but Clinton's camp used that to paint him as 'out of touch' with the average man.

Romney of course could try Clinton's tact, but would be horribly laughed at by the average person. Just another example of why Romney is a horrible candidate this year. It's like all the planets aligned against him.
 
The tepid trajectory of this recovery is very similar to the time of when Bush Sr. was running for re-election. He was trying to convince people that things were getting better, but Clinton's camp used that to paint him as 'out of touch' with the average man.

Romney of course could try Clinton's tact, but would be horribly laughed at by the average person. Just another example of why Romney is a horrible candidate this year. It's like all the planets aligned against him.
Romney is like the Dukakis from the right - just such a gaffe-prone and politically dumb-ass candidate.
It's quite funny at how dumb politically his campaign team sometimes is too. Shit rolls downhill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.