"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Cheebo]

Why Obama doesn't care about the Bill of Rights and will not veto the NDAA:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/

After reading this I can't support the guy anymore. His good looks, great speeches, internet savvy campaigners, they all scream "indefinite detention" now.  Please, someone, just tell me it isn't true.

Scary thing is Romney will be way way worse in this area. His entire foreign policy team of advisors are Neocons from the Bush white house.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Here's another indefensible position:

http://www.jdjournal.com/2011/12/08/obama-administrations-top-health-official-blocks-plan-b-pill-from-becoming-otc/

[Human Snorenado]

I guess you were right all along. Ron Paul 2012.

Sure, Ron Paul would be better on civil liberties but easily worse on everything else.

That said, I don't see myself voting for Obama in the general unless my state is polling close.  Am I gonna have to vote for crazy ass Ralph Nader again or will there be another option on the left?

[Owl-faced Wizard]

Christopher Hitchens just died.

He's with Jesus now

Reminds me of

Malcolm's drive/walk to his death is the best thing Spike Lee has EVER done.

Not in a universe where this exists:

[Mupepe]

Jesus.  I must have missed something.  Were there any huge gaffes from Newt or is it just ads highlighting his past and that he's a dick?

Wait til ads start running about Paul wanting to let your kids smoke crack and how he's a racist.  Damn.  The election is going to be cake for Obama

[Great Rumbler]

Wait...what?

[Human Snorenado]

at this rate Santorum has to win, right?  RIGHT?  Also, Pawlenty has to be kicking himself.

[Barry Egan]

this kind of stinks.  I was one of those pompous "testing-fate" liberals who felt assured Gingrich would not win in a general election.  If Paul wins Iowa than Gingrich is sunk, and Romney will pull through.   

[Brehvolution]

Chris Wallace at FNC says that if Paul wins Iowa, it doesn't count and the voters will be discredited.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Because FNC already chose Newt.

[close]

[Cheebo]

Wait til ads start running about Paul wanting to let your kids smoke crack and how he's a racist.  Damn.  The election is going to be cake for Obama

Paul isn't leading anything except Iowa. He'll win that one state and thats the end of him.  This race is ending exactly where it started with Romney as the likely nominee.

[MrAngryFace]

LOL THE HOUSE suxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Flannel Boy]

gaf atheists are almost as bad as reddit atheists.  and I'm a semi atheist!

Semi-atheist? Every single religious person is a semi-atheist--they disbelieve the existence of all deities belonging to other religions.

[Himu]

gaf atheists are almost as bad as reddit atheists.  and I'm a semi atheist!

Semi-atheist? Every single religious person is a semi-atheist--they disbelieve the existence of all deities belonging to other religions.

Add BrandNew to Himuro Plinko.

[Oblivion]

The poll found that if the November 2012 presidential election were held today, Obama would defeat Gingrich, 51 percent to 38 percent. By contrast, Obama would defeat Romney by a narrower margin, 48 percent to 40 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSTRE7BD0AI20111214

Day-um son! I think that's the highest margin I've seen Obama beating Romney so far.

[Phoenix Dark]

Romney will easily beat Obama

[Oblivion]

Mitt Romney appeared on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday, the former governor’s first Sunday show appearance in nearly two years, and Chris Wallace brought up an interesting subject: Romney’s tax plan. From the transcript:

    WALLACE: You talk about helping the middle class but your plan that would eliminate the tax on capital gains and dividends doesn’t help them. A recent study showed that a family making $75,000 a year in terms of what they would receive by eliminating capital gains and dividends, $167, sir.

   ROMNEY: Well, first of all, $167 is not zero. And number two, one of the reasons people don’t save their money is that they don’t see an incentive to do so…. What I do is allow middle-income families to finally be able to save their money tax free. No tax on interest dividends or capital gains for middle income Americans.

    WALLACE: But the argument is middle class people can’t afford, they don’t have enough money to have a lot of capital gains and dividends.

    ROMNEY: Look, I recognize it’s not a huge tax cut. It is a tax reduction and it allows middle-income folks to participate in making a brighter future for themselves and for saving.

This was a rather important exchange for a couple of reasons. The first is the basic policy realization, which the former governor is now conceding, that Romney’s plan largely ignores the middle class. For that matter, Romney has been arguing for weeks that $1,000 in middle-class families’ paychecks is a meaningless, but yesterday suggested $167 makes a big difference.

Or put another way, why does Romney think $1,000 a year is a “band-aid,” but $167 helps families make “a brighter future”?

The other problem here is simple dishonesty. Romney has spent the last several months telling voters his plan is focused on “tax cuts for the middle class,” and he doesn’t intend to “waste time trying to get tax cuts for wealthy people.” The reality, of course, is the exact opposite — Romney supports major tax breaks for the very wealthy, and as he conceded yesterday on Fox News, isn’t much focused on tax cuts for the middle class at all.

If Romney wants to make the case that middle-class tax breaks are a bad idea given the deficit, that’s fine; he can make the case. If he wants to argue that tax breaks for the wealthy are worthwhile, he can make that argument, too. But the problem is the casual, effortless dishonesty that tells the public the opposite of the truth.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/its_not_a_huge_tax_cut034186.php

this guy...

[benjipwns]

Paul polling in lead, Newt tanking

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html

Two polls now, second one with Newt below 15%:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf

[Mandark]

The day after the US leaves Iraq, the president has his VP (from a different party and sect) arrested on charges of sponsoring a death squad.

Things might get pretty messy over there, and there's gonna be a lot of bullshit written about it (to the extent that it gets covered here at all).

[Phoenix Dark]

The day after the US leaves Iraq, the president has his VP (from a different party and sect) arrested on charges of sponsoring a death squad.

Things might get pretty messy over there, and there's gonna be a lot of bullshit written about it (to the extent that it gets covered here at all).

nope

[Human Snorenado]

Romney will easily beat Obama

Bookmarked.  I love a definitive Maurice Statement.  It's like the gift that gives months later.

[Cheebo]

Romney will easily beat Obama

Romney can win. And I don't think anyone here would be surprised if he does. But it isn't going to be easily.  The handful of DNC ads ran against Romney so far were brutal on him.

[Positive Touch]

romney has less of a shot than mcgovern did.  talk about something relevant you clowns.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Will Obama campaign like he did in 2008 or will he half ass it like he has done so many times post-2008?  He's done both so this makes a difference between a bigger margin of victory than 2008 or squeaking by.

[benjipwns]

I assume it depends on the polls and who the GOP candidate winds up being. There's been talk of a $2+ billion warchest though.

[Cheebo]

It would be foolish to completely dismiss Romney winning when the economy is still doing this bad and Obama's approval still under 50%. It's rare a President is re-elected when his approval is under 50%. I think Obama is more likely to win than lose but it's going to be pretty close and I can see it going either way.

[benjipwns]

ABC/WaPo poll on a third-party Paul run:

[Human Snorenado]

Will Obama campaign like he did in 2008 or will he half ass it like he has done so many times post-2008?  He's done both so this makes a difference between a bigger margin of victory than 2008 or squeaking by.

Let's be honest here- the man has only GOVERNED in a half-assed manner.  I think he knows how to campaign.  I believe he'll beat whoever emerges from the clown car as the GOP nominee.

[Mupepe]

Paul is the Republican's Nader.  Obama's base would never vote for Paul.  The only place to pull votes from is other Republicans and "independents" (lol).

[benjipwns]

Let's be honest here- the man has only GOVERNED in a half-assed manner.  I think he knows how to campaign.  I believe he'll beat whoever emerges from the clown car as the GOP nominee.

I think he honestly underestimated the step up to the Presidency. There was a lot written about Bush and Clinton doing the same thing. (Woodward's one book is all about how Clinton came in and thought he could run it like Arkansas and before he could figure it out to adjust properly all the longtimers and opportunists (including in his Cabinet and the "they're Democrats so just appoint them" people in his staff) had decided he was weak and brought out the fangs on him in the 1993 budget fight.) But both got their focuses throw in their face: 9/11 and fighting the budget/losing HillaryCare and then Congress for the first time in half a century. Obama had to go along with his shitty Dem Congress for two years before he got anything like a challenge in the GOP House and they aren't that great and he still has the Senate dicking around being the Senate.

Anyway, Ron Paul might kill off the Iowa importance:

“It would make the caucuses mostly irrelevant if not entirely irrelevant,” said Becky Beach, a longtime Iowa Republican who helped Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 here. “It would have a very damaging effect because I don’t think he could be elected president and both Iowa and national Republicans wouldn’t think he represents the will of voters.”

...

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, adding that he didn’t know if that’s necessarily how Paul would win.

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

The most troubling eventuality that Iowa Republicans are bracing for is that Paul wins the caucuses only to lose the nomination and run as a third-party candidate in November — all but ensuring President Obama is re-elected.

“If we empower somebody who turns around and elects Obama, then that’s a major problem for the caucuses,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

...

The short version: Ignore him.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” said Gov. Terry Branstad. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html

[Brehvolution]

public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans

She means non Americans.

But gotdamn if that isn't some impressive spin.
"Uhhh if the person we don't want to win wins, then uhh, it won't count and it will be 2nd place that will prove to be the stronger candidate....." :herp :

[Mandark]

Obama will win if the economy is making okay progress and will lose if it isn't, and I'm not sure where the line for "okay" is.

I'm stealing all my opinions on this from Jonathan Bernstein, but they seem pretty intuitive: Democrats will wind up voting for the Democrat, Republicans will vote for the Republican, fake independents will vote for the party they really but won't admit to supporting, and real independents will vote based on the job situation, even if they justify it otherwise.


Also, as a WaPo subscriber (I don't even know why anymore), I can tell you that Newt has been more a target of direct fire from conservative opinionmakers than Ron Paul has.  Where's the internet fairness brigade to defend him from media elitism?

[Mupepe]

Okay okay.  Real question: Who would you lefties rather have in office... Ron or Newt? 

[Mandark]

The question is how would they wind up being president?

If Ron Paul suddenly inherited the presidency through some obscure federal statute, you'd have massive gridlock because he'd veto everything and tell his cabinet not to administer laws that he thought were unconstitutional (damn near all of them).  There would be an impeachment hearing within a year, probably sooner.  Newt would look to compromise enough for things to function and to get re-elected, though he'd probably be bad at it.

Who would I prefer if they got to enact all their favored policies?  Tough one.  Paul would completely gut the social safety net, outlaw abortion (has he ever gone on record saying what the penalties should be?), remove any oversight of corporations, revoke the civil rights act (probably the clean air and water acts too) and fuck the economy by putting us on the gold standard.  But he wouldn't start any wars and that's a very, very big deal.  Also legalizing drugs on the federal level.

Newt would only somewhat gut the social safety net, outlaw abortion, leave token corporate oversight in place, implement a bunch of small-scale idiotic ideas he had over breakfast, and probably bomb someone.


Dealing with the real life US and its politics?  Newt's less of a disaster.  Getting to be God-king and writing all the laws?  Tough call.  Paul would do some stuff I liked, but it would probably take a lot longer to repair the damage.

[Oblivion]

Welp, the House just rejected the senate deal on the payroll tax.

[Human Snorenado]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-comes-full-circle-as-iowan-calls-him-f--king-a--hole-to-his-face.php?ref=fpblg

url says it all, really.  hope you enjoyed the ride, newt.

[Cheebo]

The question is how would they wind up being president?

If Ron Paul suddenly inherited the presidency through some obscure federal statute, you'd have massive gridlock because he'd veto everything and tell his cabinet not to administer laws that he thought were unconstitutional (damn near all of them).  There would be an impeachment hearing within a year, probably sooner.  Newt would look to compromise enough for things to function and to get re-elected, though he'd probably be bad at it.

Who would I prefer if they got to enact all their favored policies?  Tough one.  Paul would completely gut the social safety net, outlaw abortion (has he ever gone on record saying what the penalties should be?), remove any oversight of corporations, revoke the civil rights act (probably the clean air and water acts too) and fuck the economy by putting us on the gold standard.  But he wouldn't start any wars and that's a very, very big deal.  Also legalizing drugs on the federal level.

Newt would only somewhat gut the social safety net, outlaw abortion, leave token corporate oversight in place, implement a bunch of small-scale idiotic ideas he had over breakfast, and probably bomb someone.


Dealing with the real life US and its politics?  Newt's less of a disaster.  Getting to be God-king and writing all the laws?  Tough call.  Paul would do some stuff I liked, but it would probably take a lot longer to repair the damage.

I am curious to see how you'd think Romney would be if he ended up winning.

[Brehvolution]

How long could you last? Hurts my brain.

[Great Rumbler]

TAXCUTSNOTAXINCREASETAXCUTSNOTAXINCREASETAXCUTSNOTAXINCREASETAXCUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait...wait....wait, guys. Does this tax cut actually create jobs? I don't know! Let's increase the middle class's yearly tax burden by $1,000 then, I guess!

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm surprised it took republicans so long to play the social security card with respect to the payroll tax cut. From what I understand the federal government uses accounting gimmicks to ensure the fund isn't effected, but obviously that can't go on forever.

It's going to look weird late next year when democrats start demanding the Bush tax cuts expire (for the wealthy, which won't happen) while arguing we must extending another payroll tax cut.

[Mandark]

The fund itself is an accounting gimmick to begin with, and it's designed for revenues from the general budget to flow back to Social Security when its bonds are redeemed anyways.

[Mupepe]

Just found this:



I find Obama being backed into a corner funny.

Yeesh.  Cringe worthy the way he stalls.  But honestly, what do people expect him to say on TV?  You know what he's thinking and everyone knows why we keep Israel close.  He really just should have said that geopolitics in the Middle East is very complicated.  In the interest of stablity we have to sometimes make tough decisions.  That's just the way it is.  But liberals would bitch about us not being morally upstanding (and finally admitting that we back douchebags) and conservatives would bitch and moan about the fact that our President pretty much just insulted "our greatest ally".  Tough spot for him to be in.

[benjipwns]

  at the end.

[Human Snorenado]

So, apparently RON PAUL stormed out of an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger because she asked him about the newsletters.

[Great Rumbler]

  at the end.

[Phoenix Dark]

 

[benjipwns]

After watching that video too much, wtf is up with 0:06-10 in that video, it's like she races through the words to suddenly slow back down with the music.

Rick Perry ads 20 years ago:

[Mupepe]

To be fair everyone has a personal interest in making sure Ron Paul doesn't get elected 

[Mupepe]

it was just a joke   I thought you'd at least laugh

[Phoenix Dark]

I didn't know Mandark worked for CNN!

[benjipwns]

He has given that same answer for decades, but nobody paid attention so I see why he gets upset when that's all anyone wants to talk about. I don't entirely buy, as I think I've said here before, the claim he didn't completely know what was being published, but it's been at least since the early 90's that he's been saying they were entirely wrong and he disagrees with them. He used to claim he had been derelict in not watching what was being published in his name, but he dropped that when he started running for President again five years ago.

It's probably Rockwell he doesn't want to throw under the bus by saying it was him overseeing the newsletters. The Rockwell people are almost as insane as Objectivists.

It's funny how aspects of the media will obsess over 15-20 year old things like this or Cain's stupidity with women or Clinton's draft dodging/drug use or Bush's national guard/drunk driving suddenly when they're in the lead. (Never before!) But will at the same time cover up or deny something like was going on with John Edwards even though he could have potentially won the nomination had they succeeded. (Or basically ignore the Bush national guard "story" four years earlier just to "discover" it again four years later and think it was the most important thing ever.)

Not to mention believing and not once investigating the whole bullshit about our Kenyan Islamist President's fake birth certificate. And don't get me started about all the homosexuals at Obama's church who have just happened to have "randomly" died under mysterious circumstances.

[Mandark]

There's an unspoken rule where no-hope candidates get a pass on the hard questions.  If you jump in the national or Iowa polls then you get more scrutiny.  Herman Cain was "running" for months and the sexual harassment settlement didn't break until he was considered a frontrunner.  George Will and Kathleen Parker didn't bother writing takedowns of Newt until he inherited the Cain bubble.   That's how it works.

Ron Paul's supporters have been whinging for years about him not getting covered like a credible candidate.  I hate to break it to you, but this is how credible candidates get treated.  What Paul did was a while ago, granted, but it was politically idiotic and he's never manned up and owned it.  Anyone who actually wants Ron Paul to win or for his ideas to catch on with a wider audience should be disappointed in him for continually fucking up on this, rather than getting a martyr complex over the media not covering up on his behalf.

See also http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

[Mupepe]

Wow before I read that article I disliked Paul because of his policies but reading that quotes makes me dislike him on a whole different level.  What a dbag.

[benjipwns]

I hate to break it to you, but this is how credible candidates get treated.

But you aren't breaking it to me, and it's not how "credible" candidates are treated. Discount that none of the candidates, "credible" or not, are treated with anything regarding sanity or actual depth. The "most credible" candidates get kid glove treatment always. For good reason.

Not counting that it's an entirely "narrative" driven affair ala sports "journalism" in the end anyway. And none of the above applies to just Ron Paul either. Who is "credible"? 1% polling Rick Santorum, 1% polling Jon Huntsman or 1% polling Gary Johnson?

What Paul did was a while ago, granted, but it was politically idiotic and he's never manned up and owned it.

And he did, but suddenly dropped it when he "went big" again as I said. I assume he's afraid of losing the money by denouncing Rockwell personally.

rather than getting a martyr complex over the media not covering up on his behalf.

I didn't. I pointed out again he's screwing this up to protect Rockwell and I don't buy his entire claim anyway. But added an aside snarking about the medias fascination with meaningless things from decades ago yet little interest in anything logical.

Ron Paul has said the same thing on the newsletters for decades, he's not going to say something different, you aren't going to get anything new from him. He has plenty to say about war, drugs, the fed, etc.

He will never win and his ideas will never catch on, that doesn't really matter regarding the critique.

[Barry Egan]

it doesn't surprise me that someone with an 18th century conception of politics has an 18th century conception of race. 

[Mandark]

benji, I wasn't talking about you.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Remember when Ron Paul hired a Klansman for his 2008 run?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/15/437394/-BREAKING:-Ron-Pauls-Klansman-Kampaign-Koordinator

One of many reasons why he doesn't get taken too seriously outside of a subset of hardcore followers.

[AdmiralViscen]

Ron Paul didn't hire him. It was a campaign aid.

The name of that campaign aid? Barack Obama. So there.

[Oblivion]

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/12/22/too-easy/

Okay, I think that's not a nice thing to say, but...

[Mandark]

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

50 scanned pages of the Ron Paul Newsletter from throughout the years.  Only read a few pages so far, but I don't think it'll let you down.

The only safe sex, medically and morally, is that between husband and wife.

[Phoenix Dark]

there's no way Paul could have been ignorant of the content [of] 8-12 page newsletters published under his name for over ten years. Paul supporters face three losing propositions:

• He lacks the competency to control content published under his own name for over a decade, and is thus unfit to lead a country.
• He doesn't believe these things but considers them a useful political tool to motivate racist whites, which makes him fit to be a GOP candidate, but too obvious about it to win.
• He's actually a racist, which makes him unfit to be a human being.

pretty much. I don't believe Paul is racist but he clearly has no qualms that much of his base are either racists or conspiracy peddlers. Who else is there to pander/get money from when corporations and unions don't like you