The Goat Pen

Bklyn wrote:I think Romney will be a solid President if he is lying about the things I believe he's lying about on the stump. I think he and Obama are closer in philosophy than people who only see (R) and (D) realize.

Doesn't matter what he truly believes. He'll have to rule from the right or face a teaparty challenge the next primary.

For me the biggest issue is that the next two people off the Supreme Court will be Ginsburg and Breyer. I'm rather indifferent on abortion but whatever it is, I prefer it to be the law of the country. If Romney wins, it will be outlawed in all Southern states once Ginsburg (I doubt she can last another 2 years) comes on. This has been an extremely activist Supreme Court, albeit conservative activism. They have overturned laws in place for hundreds of years including one law that has been around since the beginning of this country. Despite the rhetoric, the health care ruling was actually a very conservative ruling that limited both the Commerce and Spending Clause. Don't be surprise if the Supreme Court (even as now Constituted) rules that the Voting Rights Act and most affirmative action programs are unconstitutional next year. Likewise, if they go back to the Lochner era, at risk would be federal control over mining, production etc. Because of who is likely to leave the courts, if Obama is elected, the Court rulings will likely stay the same.

After 2016, Scalia and Kennedy are likely to go. That will be the biggest knockdown, dragout fight ever because Kennedy is an out of the closet bisexual on court rulings.

I'm more of a mind that Romney is tolerating the Tea Party more than he is going to support their agenda.

Its not like he is going to face a republican challenger if wins and goes on to 2016. Right now the tea party folks can block everything because just about every other Republican is too.

They'll face some serious heat if they were elected GOP and go against Romney as President. It will be Rand Paul and maybe 6 others while everyone else falls in line.

I actually think Democrats aren't all that threatened by a Romney presidency. He'll cave on immigration, I wouldn't be surprised to see him shrug his shoulders and tell people "well I tried" when he can't stop Obamacare, and financial considerations will keep him from being a war monger.

I'm more of a mind that Romney is tolerating the Tea Party more than he is going to support their agenda.

Its not like he is going to face a republican challenger if wins and goes on to 2016. Right now the tea party folks can block everything because just about every other Republican is too

Respectfully disagree. The teaparty has had no problem going against incumbents. Why wouldn't they send a challenge against Romney? All you have to do is look at Lugar? And Hatch? If Romney doesn't toe the line, their is no way he won't get a major challenge within his own party (the way Kennedy challenged Carter and Buchanan challenged Bush I and there is a much bigger opposition within the party now than in 1992).

As for PPACA, all of the Repubs know that they can't repeal it. All you have to do is listen to them. They keep talking about replacing the bill with the parts of the bill they like. What do they like? The things that are benefits to people. What do they dislike? The mandate, which is the way to pay for it. The President will never get a bill to sign or veto.

As for defense, Romney will increase defense spending by 2% and the Repubs will go along with it. They'll at the same time cut taxes and the deficit will get larger. The Dems will filibuster much, after all, it is the way to succeed against the party in power.

They'll then say, we have to cut education and benefits to the poor because we can't afford it (see Louisiana and Texas as the model).

I just don't see how Romney can move to the middle to govern with the moral majority (oops, I mean tea party) hanging over his head.

Especially when both the Senate and congress will be more conservative than they are now.

Owlman wrote:

I'm more of a mind that Romney is tolerating the Tea Party more than he is going to support their agenda.

Its not like he is going to face a republican challenger if wins and goes on to 2016. Right now the tea party folks can block everything because just about every other Republican is too

Respectfully disagree. The teaparty has had no problem going against incumbents. Why wouldn't they send a challenge against Romney? All you have to do is look at Lugar? And Hatch? If Romney doesn't toe the line, their is no way he won't get a major challenge within his own party (the way Kennedy challenged Carter and Buchanan challenged Bush I and there is a much bigger opposition within the party now than in 1992).

there will be no major challenge from the Tea Party against Romney in 2016. The tea party's strength is based on being anti-Obama and anyone they perceive as aligning themselves with Obama. Had McCain won, the tea party would still be relegated to secessionists and people wanting to be back on the gold standard. If Romney makes some attempt to gut Obamacare, selects a conservative supreme, then they'll accept it and focus on the actions of their congressman. Boehner also won't be put in the position of having to walk the tight rope of not supporting the president, catering to the tea party and complete inaction on his part to GOP initiatives. He'll have much more backing supporting the initiatives of a GOP president. The tea party does not have enough weight to make Senators start cutting entitlements to Seniors in this country.

Romney is going to be pro-military, pro-Israel but will have cold feet on any U.S. aggression that he isn't already funding. He'll be all over waste and fraud - which I actually do think he might be able to tackle with relative effectiveness and I think he keeps spending on infrastructure. But his cost cutting measures or his additional spending will move the needle much. He is going to do whatever it takes however to NOT have a trillion dollar deficit under his watch. He'll push it down, perhaps with some creative accounting tricks to where its $800b in his first year, then $700b in his second and have everyone convinced what a great job he is doing for the country by only running us at 3/4 of a trillion deficit. In order to that he'll need to see unemployment drop down to about 6.5% and pray that Europe is back on track for growth by 2014. If not, then he'll have to slash the Pentagon budget back to like 1999 levels.

All that said, I still don't see Romney winning once we enter into the debates with Obama unless the country just falls off a cliff (which is looking more probable with each earnings report)

And you think Romney will trust this??? This Romney? Careful of making any mistake? There is no way that Romney won't govern as far right as he is running. He governed as he ran in Massachusetts and now he will govern as he is running if he becomes President. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

I don't see Romney's style of governing being in conflict with that. The tea party is a vocal minority who is only effective by taking their ball and going home.

Once Romney guts Obamacare to the best of his ability, the tea party goes away. That is their uniting call. After that (given none of them support tax increases which isn't going to be on the table for Romney anyways) they splinter into pro-abortion, pro-war, anti-war, drill baby drill, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration - they are all over the place. Even if the economy stinks while he is elected, all he is going to have to do is just avoid a financial meltdown to stay in favor with the folks who voted him in.

But I don't see Romney winning so its a bit of a moot point.

PPACA will be the law of the land 4 years from now. The teaparty is not going anywhere (they sure seem to be controlling the House the past 2 years). Let Romney look like he's not following their agenda. They'll treat him like he's evil incarnate.

eCat wrote:All that said, I still don't see Romney winning once we enter into the debates with Obama unless the country just falls off a cliff (which is looking more probable with each earnings report)

Actually, I argue it's the opposite. With the ECB head saying that Northern Europe will basically cover Mediterranean Europe's debt, then the can has effectively been kicked down the road for another year. Our chances of going into a recession really hinge on the unhinging of Europe. That coast looks to be clear now, through 2013. Our growth will stay anemic, but it will still be growth (much like it has been for the past two years, or so).

Europe just insured Obama's reelection this week (unless the GOP can push another debt ceiling clusterfuck and get enough of the populace to blame it on Obama...that is a ploy that may work out).

recession/slow down - regardless of the term - if we can't get unemployment numbers down and tax revenues up, then we are treading water at best. Consumer spending has to be jumpstarted along with construction and the housing markets (if you believe in the tenets of the old economy). Europe may figure out a way to keep the union together but there will not be a turnaround within 2 years.

we'll have to disagree Spacer - I think the tea party is more about Obama being president than any great dedicated movement to real fiscal responsibility on the presidents part.

I bet 75% of the tea partiers are still saying that if we get rid of the bums on welfare we can still increase defense spending.

Europe is not out of the woods in the short-term. Tax revenues will continue to plummet as they continue to go through their recessions. There will be another hole in the dyke that needs plugged in a few weeks.

I bet 75% of the tea partiers are still saying that if we get rid of the bums on welfare we can still increase defense spending.

Which is exactly what Romney is saying that he'll do. Except that he also is proposing a big tax cut.

Owlman wrote:

I bet 75% of the tea partiers are still saying that if we get rid of the bums on welfare we can still increase defense spending.

Which is exactly what Romney is saying that he'll do. Except that he also is proposing a big tax cut.

Romney has to say that now. We're talking after the election and 2016.

Tea Party size has supposedly dwindled.

If they get mad at Romney, some may pull support for him and give it to a 3rd party (which is essentially the same as not voting), but I don't think it would be all or even most of the group. And I do not think hardly any of them would flip the vote to the democratic candidate - which doubles the effect.

It's not about a 3rd party. It's about the worst thing that can happen to an incumbent. A primary challenge. Look at all the 1 term Presidents. Most faced a decent primary challenger. They win the nomination, but it makes it very hard to win the main election. Romney knows this.

If you don't think Romney knows this, then you don't understand politics. Obama would have faced a challenge for moving to the middle if it wasn't for the fact that being the first African-American, it would have been lifetime political suicide for any on the left to challenge him. Romney doesn't have that luxury.

To think that Romney is going to run to the middle after elected, despite the politics and his history? If he were going to run to the middle after elected, he'd start doing so now when he has the hatred of Obama to get him support. Yet, he's hasn't at all. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part without any facts to support it.

he has not shot at the presidency if he doesn't run middle.

Of course running middle means no Obamacare, strong defense (but no new wars) and cut government spending

There won't be a decent second-term primary challenger if Romney were to win (by design of the RNC) and the so-called tea party won't change this. If you dont understand this, you don't understand politics. But he won't win, so the point is moot.

You misunderstand. It doesn't mean that Romney will lose to a challenger, but he'd definitely would get one. But it will not happen, even if he becomes President, because he will not move to the middle (the deficit will explode with a big tax cut, military increase, not touching medicare and war-mongering on Iran.) That's not the middle, that's the tea-party agenda.

that really hasn't changed since 2008.

McCain couldn't get elected because his core base wasn't sold on another 8 years of GOP.

and Romney couldn't beat McCain.

But I can't keep up - are we talking about the current election or 2016? Because I do agree, the Tea Party (which really stands for every conservative that is luke warm on Romney) is going to be a major problem to him in this election. In 2016 they'll be a non factor should he be elected...which he won't.