Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[snyprrr]

Religious bigots may think some such, yes.

Huntsman has no chance.  Romney has a chance.  Neither are crazy/far right/etc.

Mormons wear Magic Underwear Todd.

[Todd]

Mormons wear Magic Underwear Todd.

It's not too hard to think of some rather silly tall tales and beliefs in other religions.  I shan't go into detail here.

[Daverz]

While that's the case with some of them, I can't see how it's possible to characterize either Romney or Huntsman in such a way.

(In my original post I feel I should have said either batshit crazy or bugfuck crazy.  My apologies for mixing the two.)

Neither Romney nor Huntsman can win the nomination without pandering to the batshit Republican base.

[Kontrapunctus]

Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates.  Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.

Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude.  If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.

I think (and hope!) that we will see less timidity--Obama seems genuinely pissed off at the party crap that went on recently. Of course, with the Tea Baggers basically in charge of Congress, I don't what he can do--he can't simply kick them out and replace them with rational, intelligent beings who actually know something about politics, economics, history, etc. (Oh, if only it were that simple!)

[mc ukrneal]

Some of you folks are really beating up on the Republican candidates.  Perhaps each of them is a pathetic loser, but I have a hard time thinking of Obama as a winning president.

Overall, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude.  If Obama continues as a timid president, I'll be shopping around.

I think his biggest problem is that he thinks too much like a legislator and not enough as an executive. As a senator, he has to compromise - that is part of the job. But as President, there needs to be a different approach to compromise.

[Brian]

I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.

[mc ukrneal]

I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.

Yeah - using that logic, isn't someone who voted against raising the debt ceiling a traitor too (that is, they voted for default by voting against the increase)? I think these sorts of statements are incredibly dangerous. I wonder if any of them like Eggs Benedict?

[Todd]

Neither Romney nor Huntsman can win the nomination without pandering to the batshit Republican base.

Well, that's true.  That doesn't make either of them crazy, just politicians.

I think these sorts of statements are incredibly dangerous.

I think it's standard rhetoric and not dangerous at all.  The Fed has been a punching bag for a lot of people for a long time, especially when times are tough or rates are rising.  It's not quite as predictable and tired as "Washington is broken," but it establishes, perhaps in some minds, anti-establishment credibility.  If Perry does win the nomination, I predict he moves more to the center rhetorically.  If elected, I'd be surprised if he does much about the Fed.

[karlhenning]

So just a Texas blowhard, you'd say? ; )

[mc ukrneal]

I think it's standard rhetoric and not dangerous at all.  The Fed has been a punching bag for a lot of people for a long time, especially when times are tough or rates are rising.  It's not quite as predictable and tired as "Washington is broken," but it establishes, perhaps in some minds, anti-establishment credibility.  If Perry does win the nomination, I predict he moves more to the center rhetorically.  If elected, I'd be surprised if he does much about the Fed.

No, I understand that. But calling a public official a traitor for doing what they feel is right for the country, just because it opposes your ideology, is a bad idea. It's a slippery slope.

[Todd]

But calling a public official a traitor for doing what they feel is right for the country, just because it opposes your ideology, is a bad idea. It's a slippery slope.

See Karl's response. 

[DavidW]

Does anyone know the date and times of the debates btw (and what channels)?  I think I might have already missed one.

[Bulldog]

Obama is timid, so you're shopping around for batfuck crazy?  Cuz that's what the Republicans are offering.

It's very simple.  I'll be casting my vote in November 2012, more than a year from now.  Much could happen during that time period.  More Republican candidates could jump into the race, one or more third-party/independent candidates might enter the race and it's even possible that a Democrat might challenge Obama.  So I'm keeping my options open right now.

Just wanted to add that the "burning" issues in November 2012 might not be the same issues that are currently at the top of the list. 

[drogulus]

I'm looking over this Post, and...yikes!... it's a horrible, long rambling mess,...

...mm...

I feel good about it! My job is done here.

Happy Voting!


May all your grandchildren NOT have to built Emperor Wang's Monument

     Thanks.

     I think it will come down to Romney and Obama, the crazies having cancelled each other out. So the choice will be center-left versus center-right. I prefer Obama, because we're in a situation that calls for the kind of intervention in the economy that Obama and Congressional Democrats will ultimately be forced by circumstances to resort to. When everything else fails (tax cuts, program cuts, laying off government workers) these people will grudgingly, reluctantly move to boost the economy directly with government spending. The Republicans oppose this because 1) it's against their deepest principles and 2) it would help Obama by helping the economy recover. That's against their deepest principles, too, though principle 1 suggests that government spending is bad and principle 2 admits that it's good. After all, in the crisis atmosphere at the end of Bush II what did the Repubs do? They agreed with Democrats that government stimulus was necessary. The Democrats were not deterred by the fact that Bush was in the White House. They voted for the rescue plan, too.

     I conclude that politicians, as various as their ideologies are, will often converge on an empirically valid approach to a problem, but only in a crisis that scares the shit out of them, and as soon as the worst consequences of the danger have passed they will revert to their "deepest principles", antiempirical notions that are comforting and popular, useless though they are when the crisis looms again. So, it's nonsense all day (never mind economic collapse, what about the "long term debt crisis"?) until naked terror forces the office holders, against their better judgment one might say, to face the truth.

[DavidRoss]

I gather Rick Perry has accused Ben Bernanke of treason. That's smart.

That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press.  Here's what Perry actually said when asked what he thought about Bernanke's Fed considering yet another monetary "stimulus":

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we — we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.  Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous — or treasonous — in my opinion.

Historically, expanding the money supply at a rate greater than economic growth has (a) caused inflation (heck, it practically defines inflation!), (b) eroded economic gains of the middle class, (c) pushed middle class taxpayers into higher income brackets, thus surreptitiously raising taxes, and (d) reduced the real value of government notes, thus easing the debt burden by screwing our creditors.

For a different take on the matter than you'll find in Pravda, you might take a look at http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=50902 , the first source I found that actually quoted Perry rather than maliciously paraphrasing his remarks to better demonize him in the minds of the unthinking masses.
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=50902

[Todd]

(c) pushed middle class taxpayers into higher income brackets, thus surreptitiously raising taxes

In the US this has not been the case since the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

The purpose of quantitative easing, which relies on Monetarist (ie, conservative) thinking, is to flood the system with cash when demand is low and fiscal expansion is not possible.  This is a good thing. 

[Daverz]

That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press. 

What is the looney left press?

Here's what Perry actually said

Oh, he said "almost".  Not "treasonous", just "almost treasonous".  And that wasn't violence he was implying at the beginning, he probably just means that they would snub him at cocktail parties in Houston.

[eyeresist]

It's hard to believe anyone, left or right, would think printing more money to pay off the debt would be a good idea. Remember Argentina! Remember Germany! The lack of mainstream ridicule of Bernanke's suggestion shows that wishful thinking trumps historical precedent. (A little like the crash that couldn't happen?)

And no, calling a public official "treasonous" is poor form unless that person has actually been caught selling state secrets or wearing the enemy uniform. But reasonableness and good taste won't win Teabaggers' votes.

[Brian]

Oh, he said "almost".  Not "treasonous", just "almost treasonous".  And that wasn't violence he was implying at the beginning, he probably just means that they would snub him at cocktail parties in Houston.

Heh. Saying "we would treat" "this guy" "pretty ugly down in Texas" is not exactly the counter-argument of a sophisticate. I resent it further because of Perry's implication that Texas would line right up behind him. I would probably ask Ben Bernanke to buy me a beer.

[Herman]

That's what anyone would gather from the spin of the mainstream and looney left press.

so the difference is "almost treason" instead of "treason"?

wow, those radical left wing Pravda lookalike media are really getting out of control.

and Perry's quote is just plain levelheaded.