It looks like one of the candidates is finally coming around.

[Worriedman]

This Administration reminds me of an angler desperate to fill their creel with crappie, they locate a good tree top on a rock slope, but tire quickly of getting hung up, so they drop a weighted grapple and pull the offending branches out, makes it easer to present a bait, but destroys the cover and drives off the fish.

Said angler understands a little of the game, water=fish, but the intricate wisdom escapes him. Maybe he was raised by purse seiners on the open ocean and their historical knowledge and experience just do not translate well to the current local and species.??

Problem is, this Administration is at the helm of the only boat,and we all suffer or prosper from the direction and methods of the "Captain".

[R_Bert]

If the Repubs control the senate, he will have a tough time screwing up the supreme court, right? Most of the things Obama did was when he owned both houses. Been pretty slow for him since the Dems lost the house.

He already owns the Supreme Court, and more so when a Justice dies. It may take him a while to get someone confirmed, but they will *still* be his choice.

[R_Bert]

Liberal

and even Marxist.

If you want to see where they aspire to, look at South Africa and the direction that country is heading (they actually considered nationalizing truck farms ala Mugabe, and they are absolutely driven by the "greens").

Edited February 29, 2012 by R_Bert

[mikegideon]

and even Marxist.

If you want to see where they aspire to, look at South Africa and the direction that country is heading (they actually considered nationalizing truck farms ala Mugabe, and they are absolutely driven by the "greens").

I don't see it as anything more than good noise for the radio and Fox news. They're liberals, pushing the same crap that liberals have always pushed. Bailing out a car comapany is a far cry from nationalizing an industry. It's not even the first time it's been done.

[R_Bert]

and even Marxist.

If you want to see where they aspire to, look at South Africa and the direction that country is heading (they actually considered nationalizing truck farms ala Mugabe, and they are absolutely driven by the "greens").

I don't see it as anything more than good noise for the radio and Fox news. They're liberals, pushing the same crap that liberals have always pushed. Bailing out a car comapany is a far cry from nationalizing an industry. It's not even the first time it's been done.

I am speaking in terms of philosophy, not a discrete industry. I had not even thought of the bailouts, but was thinking in terms of government intrusion in general. South Africa has it in spades.

Although Apartied *had* to be rooted out, it has been been replaced with a marxist leaning government who are implementing the values desperately sought by BHO The WH, State Department, and Supreme Court have all given their accolades to the societal and economic "progress" by the RSA government, and that it is a model for all. Problem is that the South Africans cannot pay for it. They are heading the way of Greece before long if they do not turn arround.

Having been in South Africa 21 times since 1990, it is amazing how fast and how deeply industry there is crumbling.

Edited February 29, 2012 by R_Bert

[mikegideon]

Liberal= Intrusion

[Oh Shoot]

I could live with that situation. I agree, O is most likely gonna win another term. If the senate and house are both republican, he can't do much damage. Maybe the best thing is to just lock it down for four years, and hope that a leader surfaces next time.

IF Mitt can win, and he's the only one who can, I think we all might be surprised at how competent a prez he may be.

I was impressed with his win in Michigan, as he lost 10% right off the top with Dem votes, probably heavily UAW comprised.

- OS

Edited February 29, 2012 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

IF Mitt can win, and he's the only one who can, I think we all might be surprised at how competent a prez he may be.

- OS

I can buy into that too. You're on a roll

[mav]

I'm actually warming up a little bit towards Mitt. Paul is still my first choice, and that is who I will be voting for come Tuesday. However, Mitt seems so much better than Santorum, and Newt doesn't really stand a chance. I think Coulter may be right about Mitt, and Levin and others are wrong about Santorum.

I hope I am right, and I certainly hope Mitt doesn't choose someone like Christie as his running mate. I do not like Christie, and I think that would be a really bad ticket. I wouldn't mind seeing a Romney/Demint ticket.

[mikegideon]

Well Mav, you might as well like the guy that's screwing you . No matter who wins, us working stiffs are going to wind up with the short end of the stick.

Me... I'm still liking Camacho. He'll legalize automatic weapons, and get rid of that pesky law about alcohol and guns.

[Oh Shoot]

...I hope I am right, and I certainly hope Mitt doesn't choose someone like Christie as his running mate. I do not like Christie, and I think that would be a really bad ticket. I wouldn't mind seeing a Romney/Demint ticket.

Rubio is the obvious choice still, I think, IF Rubio will play. Southern vote plus surely much of the Hispanic would come on board. Would make the ticket much more palatable to the Tea Party and far right, too, would seem. Especially with the possibility of Mario Marco taking the reins 8 years down the road.

However many feel there's "no diff" between the two parties as to the ultimate path we're on, I'd opine that 12-16 years of GOP dominance will result in quite a different country than the same under the Dems. Just four more with an ideologue having nothing to lose is frightening to say the least.

- OS

Edited March 1, 2012 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

Just four more with an ideologue having nothing to lose is frightening to say the least.

- OS

I wouldn't say he has nothing to lose. That's election-time rhetoric. Anybody with that kind of ego is going to be real concerned about what history has to say. I think he'll also be careful not to destroy the long term position of the Democrats. Last, but not least, there's life after the presidency.

I think he'll keep pushing his agenda real hard.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I wouldn't say he has nothing to lose. That's election-time rhetoric. Anybody with that kind of ego is going to be real concerned about what history has to say. I think he'll also be careful not to destroy the long term position of the Democrats. Last, but not least, there's life after the presidency.

I think he'll keep pushing his agenda real hard.

It's hard to say. As long as socialist/democrat historians give him a pass, Obama might not care what the few conservative or libertarian historians think. By analogy suppose a jazz musician releases a smash hit record, but country critics hate it. How much sleep is that jazz musician gonna lose because country critics don't dig it? Works just as good the other way around. If a country musician has a smash hit on his hands but the jazz critics don't dig it, then the country musician is gonna care? Not likely anyway.

It is not clear that BHO cares about the long term position of democrats. Ferinstance BHO will almost certainly campaign against his own party's "do nothing congress" in order to win election, inasmuch as his admin's "major accomplishments" are wildly unpopular at the moment. He has to throw Pelosi's house and Reid's Senate under the bus to have any chance at re-election.

However, even if a feller has good intentions, then it is hardly clear whether good intentions can be at all palliative against incompetence and poor judgement. For instance I believe that George W Bush is a "basically good guy" who had nothing but the purest good intentions for the american people and the republican party, but GWB probably could not have destroyed the republican ascendancy any more thoroughly if Bush had been trying his damdest to screw the people and ruin the republican party.

Indeed-- There is life after the presidency indeed. Indeed. For instance after Reagan's final term, Reagan made multi-million dollar speaking tours in nations who had profited greatly from Reagan's policies of unilateral economic disarmament. Perhaps it was because foreigners were willing to pay millions of dollars because they were so desperately eager to get to hear an old man bloviate in a foreign tongue. On the other hand if the millions were actually a generous gratuity in appreciation of Reagan having sold USA industries down the river, then it couldn't have been setup any better to avoid legal complications.

Maybe Obama won't mind so much if he has a bad rep in the usa, assuming the chicoms and saudis are generous enough with the speaking engagement fees? He has got to scrape up enough money buy his own private version of Air Force One one way or the other. Otherwise Michelle will be very upset.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

Sorry. Forgot where I was for a minute. Just trying to brace myself for the eventual outcome.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

For what its worth Dick Morris thinks Obama is almost certain to lose-- That there is miniscule chance of Obama winning a second term. Morris gives reasonable rationale for that view and the man is about as smart as the other blathering talking heads.

I should have kept written scorecard on Morris' election predictions, having heard them for more than a decade. As best I recall, a casual impression-- Morris only has about a 50/50 batting average, which is no more or less intelligent than a coin flip. Maybe he actually does better if strictly tabulated, dunno. On the other hand scoring as good as a coin flip might be pretty good performance. Many talking heads and experts have MUCH WORSE averages than a random coin flip. Kinda like the educated high-paid respected stock analysts who have worse long-term performance than random dice.

http://uspolitics.ab..._division_2.htm

If Obama wins I hope R's can at least hold the House and win the Senate. OTOH if Obama loses am tempted to hope that D's manage to hold the Senate.

I would be more eager to see R's in charge of all three, assuming the R's would do the right thing this time. On the other hand the Rs were not smart enough to do the right thing a mere 5 years ago when they owned all three, and it is difficult to see they they have learned much in the interim. If R's get all three starting 2013, then they will probably screw it up sufficiently to guarantee that D's take over again by 2017.

So PERHAPS we would get a better result with an R Prez and R House with a D Senate. Which MAY prevent the R's doing the dumb stuff they probably can't help themselves from doing when in full control. Just as the time period of 2009-2010 presents strong evidence that D's can't help themselves from being the opposite kind of stupid when D's have full control.

I don't think it possible to rigorously measure "how good a job" R's or D's do when fully in charge, though I have a gut feel that we do better when neither party has all the marbles.

Some D or R advocates have attempted to correlate economic conditions versus the party in power, managing to "prove" that D's are better than R's (or vice-versa) by careful selection of parameters and time-windows. I don't think it can be scientifically done because, among other reasons--

1. The gov cannot influence some events or conditions.

2. The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

3. Dumb gov policies may only "bear fruit" in unintended consequences years or decades later, so one might blame R's for dumb stuff the D's did long ago, or vice-versa.

4. Similarly, smart gov policies may only "bear fruit" after the opposing party takes the reins, allowing the wrong party to eventually claim credit.

5. Both D and R policies have drifted over time so even if D's of the 1960's might have got a few things right, makes no correlation with how D's in other decades may fare, because it was different D's with different policies. Same deal with the R's.

Though not amenable to scientific analysis, the times in the chart above of single-party-rule, give a gut-feel of being "not the best we can do". Reagan + D's, or GHWB + D's didn't do too bad. Lots better than Carter + D's or Johnson + D's.

Though I don't especially admire Clinton, we seemed to prosper pretty well with Clinton + R's. The first two years of Clinton + D's didn't work that great. On the other hand, the six years of Clinton + R's seemed to "wisely conserve and improve-upon" whatever reforms had been made by mixed-power under the previous two R presidents.

Maybe we could muddle along about as good with Obama + R's, except that Obama might be too much of an idiot to allow the "mixed-power magic" to work. Clinton wasn't any more ideal than any other politician, but at least he was somewhat on the ball.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Moped]

He's probably inspired by the Crusades. Christians vs the Muslims.

Perhaps we'd get a new Cabinet of Inquisition for us heretics.

- OS

I know that's sarcasm, but I have to tell you that Santorum scares the hell out of me for that very reason.

[kieefer]

I like a Mitt/DeMint ticket. DeMint supported Mitt in 08 so he might could steer Mitt further to the right as VP. Rubio would be good two.

Either of these two VP choices would be good for whoever gets the nomination.