The Goat Pen

DooKSucks wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:The South and Southwest are Republican. The Northeast and Left Coast are Democrat. The Midwest is usually the swing region. It's surprising that more presidential candidates don't come from the Midwest (Obama is from Hawaii and Indonesia). Americans keep electing mostly Southern governors.

NC is a swing state that has been controlled by Democrats for the vast majority of its history, including the present day. Yes, it voted for Republican presidential candidates 80-04, but Clinton barely lost NC both times.

The rest of the South is Republican though. We just happen to be more progressive than our shithead neighbors.

You're not controlled by Dems anymore...

DooKSucks wrote:1992
Bush: 43.44%
Clinton: 42.65%
Perot: 13.7%

1996
Dole: 48.73%
Clinton: 44.04%
Perot: 6.8%

1996 wasn't as close as I thought it was, but it's not bad.

Did they split the electoral votes?

DooKSucks wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:The South and Southwest are Republican. The Northeast and Left Coast are Democrat. The Midwest is usually the swing region. It's surprising that more presidential candidates don't come from the Midwest (Obama is from Hawaii and Indonesia). Americans keep electing mostly Southern governors.

NC is a swing state that has been controlled by Democrats for the vast majority of its history, including the present day. Yes, it voted for Republican presidential candidates 80-04, but Clinton barely lost NC both times.

The rest of the South is Republican though. We just happen to be more progressive than our shithead neighbors.

You say progressive like it's a good thing.

With regards to Christie - now that we have elected Obama - lack of experience should never again be a factor when discussing someones qualifications for office.

So according to Perry, the treasonous Bernanke would be treated badly (aka killed, maimed, or tortured) if he were to somehow wander into Texas. I suppose Perry knows that Bernanke was hired by Texas's favorite son, George Dubya Bush..?

Dr. Nostron wrote:With regards to Christie - now that we have elected Obama - lack of experience should never again be a factor when discussing someones qualifications for office.

Lack of being fucking nuts is key this particular election.

DOH!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/surv ... 20531.html

The professors were following up on research they conducted in 2006 and 2007 for their book "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us" and decided to add the tea party and atheists to their list of survey queries. By going back to many of the same respondents, the professors gleaned several interesting facts about the tea party.

One of their more surprising findings, Campbell concedes, (and one drawing national attention) is that the tea party drew a lower approval rating than Muslims and atheists. That put the tea party below 23 other entries--including Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Republicans and Democrats--that the professors included on their survey of "a representative sample of 3,000 Americans."

There isn't another candidate that is even close to being better qualified, this time, or 4 years ago...

Any candidate who has principles and can tell the truth is more qualified than Romney.

No pols have principles or tell the truth.

Professor Tiger wrote:So I guess the Romney doctrine on health care is governmental takeover of medicine is okay as long as it's on a small scale?

He was for government run medical care before he was against it? If a conservative buys that argument, then he should apologize to John Kerry, who was skewered for it.

No. I'm saying if the people of whatever state vote to do something that affects their state and not mine, then fine as long as it doesn't violate the US or state constitution.

Of course fed funding is involved so an argument could be made about that.

One of their more surprising findings, Campbell concedes, (and one drawing national attention) is that the tea party drew a lower approval rating than Muslims and atheists.

Proof of the power of the MSM.

LOL

bluetick wrote:

Dr. Nostron wrote:With regards to Christie - now that we have elected Obama - lack of experience should never again be a factor when discussing someones qualifications for office.

Lack of being fucking nuts is key this particular election.

Again Oprama proves that doesn't matter.

So sad BOJ.

puterbac wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:So I guess the Romney doctrine on health care is governmental takeover of medicine is okay as long as it's on a small scale?

He was for government run medical care before he was against it? If a conservative buys that argument, then he should apologize to John Kerry, who was skewered for it.

No. I'm saying if the people of whatever state vote to do something that affects their state and not mine, then fine as long as it doesn't violate the US or state constitution.

Of course fed funding is involved so an argument could be made about that.

This is the whole beauty of FEDERALISM. Willard Mitt Romney gets this. President Obama (and sadly, too many Republicans running for President and far too many people on this forum) DO NOT. There are certain powers that are fucking unique to the state, powers that the Federal government does not have (nor should it EVER have.) The US Constitution limits the scope and power of the Federal government.

The state government, that is a whole different thing.

The Federal government has power to regulate interstate commerce. In that sense, YES, the Federal government can (and eventually will) dictate to the states that they most certainly do NOT have the right to change marriage laws regarding who can marry who. They don't have that right because a "marriage" is a Federal government sanctified union (regardless of what that insano whack-job Congressman Ron Paul thinks) that is legally binding when you move state to state.

That IS interstate commerce.

On the other hand, Massachusetts saying to its citizens, "Yo, people of Massachusetts, you are not responsible enough to live within our state without health insurance because we know you are all a bunch of useless fuckups who are going to get hurt and wander into our hospital emergency rooms with no money and no insurance and the state government is forced to reimburse those emergency rooms for your care. So if you want to live here, BUY THIS THING. If you don't want to, get the fuck out, go to New Hampshire, and don't let the door hit you on the way out...." Yes, Massachusetts (and any state) can do that. They can do that because a New Hampshire resident living in New Hampshire without health insurance doesn't cost Massachusetts anything.

President Obama (and the PURELY partisan Democrat Congressmen and women since not one GOP Congressman voted yes for this) who enacted "Obamacare" are painfully ignorant of United States Constitution and the limits it puts on the power of the Federal Government. The Fed does not have the power the state government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has in mandating health insurance. The 11 Circuit Court knows this and so will the Supremes.

So does Romney.

Willard Mitt Romney knows Constitutional law. He knows business. And he knows how to communicate that to ordinary people. A little trick LDS pick up is their ability to be great communicators. Rick Perry is about to learn the hard way in his first debate with Romney.

Not that I'm any big fan of Perry, but he's smoking Willard in the polls.

And commercials showing Willard hugging Ted Kennedy at the ObamaRomneyCare signing ceremony haven't even run yet,

::::wonders if Prof sang happy birthday to Elvis on the recent anniversary of the King's death:::::

as requested by his current fave candidate

bluetick wrote:Imagine if the Democratic Party nominated a combination of Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi for the presidency, and you have a sense of the gamble Republicans would be taking with Perry. And even if that gamble worked, little in his record suggests that he's prepared to preside over a polarized country, or negotiate his way through a divided Washingston.

Maybe Perry has hidden subtleties; maybe Romney has hidden convictions. But if this is a 1970s moment for America and the world, the Republican front-runners look more like John Connally and Gerry Ford than Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

So whose door should Republicans be knocking on instead? Unless Mitch Daniels changes his mind or Jeb Bush changes his last name, the only compelling possibility remaining is Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... cation=rss

A thoughtful article imo that poses the question - is this slate of candidates the best the GOP can do? - and makes no bones about the answer.

I don't think Christie has enough experience, and he's GOT to push away from the table - but I'd feel much better if he were to jump in the race. It could be a great moment, something akin to the premise of Thunderdome - "one man enter, three crazies leave." One could hope..

Christie doesn't have enough experience? Really?

Wtf were you saying about mr 2 years in the senate before he started running?

Gingrich is the smartest, best candidate on the R side. He's unelectable, though. A ticket with him as president and Christie or Condeleeza as VP would be very interesting.

On the D side, it will be Obama and Biden, of course. I think Obama is hurt by Biden. It worked in 08 because in the Biden vs Palin comparison, Biden was clearly favorable to most non-partisans (myself included). Biden vs Christie or Rice is just the opposite, though.

The republicans aren't smart enough to put up a ticket like that, though.

Apparently my Christie endorsement was not ringing enough for some of you pukes.

Wtf were you saying about Mr 2 years in the senate before he started running?

I never defended oprama's experience or lack thereof - what was the point? He was short on experience too.