Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Todd]

Hey, look what I found in the loony left press! ; )

Who would ever consider a governor of any state who has served ten years a hillbilly dimwit? 

[karlhenning]

A fair question. Someone, I suppose, whose wits are none too bright . . . .

[The new erato]

Worth noting perhaps:

[snyprrr]

Did I mention JOHN BOLTON considering a run??



AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH....................

[snyprrr]

Ya think DICK CHENEY could win against Obama?

[Todd]

Ya think DICK CHENEY could win against Obama?

His heart would give out on the stump, so no.

[Superhorn]

    God, please let  news come out that Michele Bachmann is actually a closet lesbian ! 

[drogulus]

   

Worth noting perhaps:

     There are 2 things to note about this chart. The first is that Dems raise everyone's income more than Repubs do. The second is that Dems raise lower incomes more than higher ones while still raising incomes for all groups. The charge that they level down is false. That said, what rationale remains for contractionist policies that shrink the pie while giving ever larger slices to those who have the most now? The Repubs boast that their economic model, though it may favor the rich at first, eventually favors everyone by the process widely known as "trickle down". The chart, and many others I've seen over the years that tell the same story, shows that the combination of economic nostrums Repubs use has the effect of pushing economic gains to the top incomes and leaving them there until the policies are reversed. Furthermore, there are less gains to distribute.

     One would like to think that both major parties want to improve the economy for all citizens. It may be that most Repubs and Dems want that, but it isn't the case that they have equally good means to accomplish the goal, and the picture is complicated further by the presence of subgroups within the parties that are more interested in disfavoring opponents than they are in making things better for all. The Repubs practice the politics of resentment to a greater degree, and while the rhetoric of resentment of the rich is a part of what the Dems use (Roosevelt was the master) the programmatic results are widely divergent, as the chart shows. The poor don't want to make the rich poorer, they just want to get richer themselves. The Repub model is starkly different. The guiding ethos appears to be that you can't be really rich unless you're surrounded by poverty, and that is exactly what their policies aim for. This isn't said in so many words, it's just how it turns out. And, as the Marxists say, it's no accident. The old racist Democrats of the Deep South switched to the Republican Party in recent decades, have largely taken over the party machinery, and have submerged the racist rhetoric in favor of a reactionary economic and social attack against policies that distribute higher gains more widely. This means Repubs give up higher gains for themselves, but that's OK, because they are defending a social position that's threatened by wide prosperity.

[Herman]

The Repubs practice the politics of resentment to a greater degree, and while the rhetoric of resentment of the rich is a part of what the Dems use (Roosevelt was the master) the programmatic results are widely divergent, as the chart shows. The poor don't want to make the rich poorer, they just want to get richer themselves. The Repub model is starkly different. The guiding ethos appears to be that you can't be really rich unless you're surrounded by poverty, and that is exactly what their policies aim for. This isn't said in so many words, it's just how it turns out.

I think that's a pretty accurate analysis, as long as one takes "surrounded by poverty" not in a physical literal sense. People don't want really poor folks as neighbours, but it does give a lot of people great satisfaction to know there are real losers in society.

Last nights I saw portions of the New Hampshire debate for GOP candidates, and it is was a pretty saddening spectacle  -  talk about denial.

[Todd]

Romney shows a common touch.

[karlhenning]

Hah! I think I know whither that link leadeth, without as yet mashing it!

[Todd]

Whew, that's a relief.  I wonder if he still wants to repeal the 17th, an idea which apparently is floated in his great tome from last year.  (Alas, I have not had time to read it.  Perhaps others can comment on its literary and intellectual quality.)  His other desired changes to the Constitution and government include a balanced budget amendment, an idea as bad as the Three Fifths clause or Prohibition; stripping federal judges of lifetime appointments, which is Rooseveltian in its audacity, if not finesse; and, as is required by a social (so-called) conservative, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Now that he's backpedaling on one item, I wonder how long it will take for him to backpedal on his other colossally stupid ideas.  At least he knows how to waffle. 


It also looks like Jon Huntsman is close to throwing in the towel – he said that he would consider being Michelle Bachmann's running mate.  Shouldn't he have waited until at least one actual primary took place before groveling?  And can you believe his nerve, saying that he believes in evolution and global warming.  Pure crazy talk!  Science is bogus, I thought everyone knew that.

[Brian]

It also looks like Jon Huntsman is close to throwing in the towel – he said that he would consider being Michelle Bachmann's running mate.

Damn. I had respect for that man.

[kishnevi]

Whew, that's a relief.  I wonder if he still wants to repeal the 17th, an idea which apparently is floated in his great tome from last year.  (Alas, I have not had time to read it.  Perhaps others can comment on its literary and intellectual quality.)  His other desired changes to the Constitution and government include a balanced budget amendment, an idea as bad as the Three Fifths clause or Prohibition; stripping federal judges of lifetime appointments, which is Rooseveltian in its audacity, if not finesse; and, as is required by a social (so-called) conservative, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Now that he's backpedaling on one item, I wonder how long it will take for him to backpedal on his other colossally stupid ideas.  At least he knows how to waffle. 

Dislike of the 16th and 17th amendments seem to go hand in hand--there's a certain trend in conservative thinking which sees them as part of the perverse Progressive plot to gut the Constitution from the inside and destroy Freedom As Our Founding Fathers new it.

I could handle a definite time limit on how long judges can serve--retirement at 70 or limiting terms to twelve or fifteen years.  I don't have stats, but I think a lot of judges are already getting ready to retire, or go on reserve status (meaning, get called to sit as a judge only when there's too much of a caseload or a special case needs an extra judge),  by the time they've served fifteen years or so.  Lifetime appointments are not really lifetime, execpt for the Supreme Court.

What I wouldn't want is for anyone to be able to vote a judge out of office, which can already happen at the state level (see Iowa for a recent example).

[Todd]

What I wouldn't want is for anyone to be able to vote a judge out of office, which can already happen at the state level (see Iowa for a recent example).

Where I live judges are elected as well, and it can be a mess.  Often, though, they run unopposed.  Judges should be insulated from day-to-day politics.

[Daverz]

Where I live judges are elected as well, and it can be a mess.  Often, though, they run unopposed.  Judges should be insulated from day-to-day politics.

And when it comes time to vote, how does one find information about the judges?  I often leave these blank, but if I find an endorsement on the state or local GOP website I can at least cross them off in the voter guide.  But a Dem endorsement is no guarantee the judge isn't some corporate stooge on the make.  Maybe I should call the candidates up and grill them myself.

[kishnevi]

I was thinking more of the merit retention elections, by which appellate level judges have to face a vote every so many years to retain the seat the governor appointed them to.  We have it here in Florida.  The idea is to let the public have a chance to get rid of bad judges.  I mentioned Iowa because earlier this year (it may have actually been last year--I don't actually remember when it happened) the state Supreme Court judges who voted in favor of permitting gay marriage in that state lost their retention elections due to a heavy campaign against them by the religious right and social conservatives (insofar as those are not the same thing nowadays) as punishment for their decision.

Dave--check with your local and state bar associations.  Here in Florida, the Bar conducts regular polls of its members on the judges they deal with, and publishes the results.  I think every state has a similar program.  That won't tell you about lawyers running for the first time for a judicial seat, but it would be a good guide on the quality of sitting judges who are up for re-election.

[RebLem]

Possibly, but I doubt it.  She may be angling for another VP slot.  Imagine Perry and Palin, or rather, Right and Righter.  She clearly loves the limelight and she enjoys making lots of money, so she may just be a gadfly for a while before returning to her TV home.  That's a good place for her.

I think Palin wants to be a king/queenmaker, not a candidate, and perhaps RNC Chair.

[RebLem]

As opposed to the geniuses that nearly ran the entire economy to the ground while the nation is being swept by unchecked mass immigration. Those are the people we ought to trust, right? 

The geniuses who ran the economy into the ground were in the Cheney Administration.  Remember the Crash of 2008?  Hmmmm?  And the Republicants in Congress have generally opposed every ameliorative measure Obama has proposed and will continue to do so.  Trying to compromise with them is like trying to get your footing on a waterbed--as soon as you take a stand--any stand--the foundation rushes away. 

As for immigration, three points--our immigration quotas are unrealistically low.  The economy needs more immigrants than the quotas will allow to come in  legally.  These are the people who are going to help us resolve our Social Security funding problems if we give them half a chance, by increasing the number of people putting into the fund.  But Republicants don't want to allow much of any immigration anymore unless they are Indians already writing for National Review, because they know most immigrants who become citizens vote Democratic.  That's because we Democrats are not xenophobes.  Thirdly, it is not true that immigration is unchecked.  Obama deported more immigrants per year in his first two years than Bush ever did.  The Border Patrol staffing levels have increased under the Obama Administration despite the fact that there are fewer people attempting to cross our southern border, thanks to the recession.  It just isn't true that immigration is unchecked.  That was much closer to the truth during the Cheney Administration.

[RebLem]

I know very little about Perry.  Why the negativity?

As Jim Hightower says, "Rick Perry is the guy who put the goober in gubernatorial."