2012 Elections

[El Guapo]

Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing? It's so juvenile - basically just a dussied up version of calling him a poopyhead. And it only makes me think more about the, uh, imagery that is invoked, which is hardly something I want to do.

Plus I think it demeans opposition to Santorum. The guy's an extremist nutjob like Palin, only able to put together more coherent answers to questions. This stuff makes it look like his opponents are a bunch of giggling teenagers, while there are very good, substantive reasons to be appalled by his candidacy.

[GreenGoo]

Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

Enjoy it? I don't even understand it. I clearly missed something along the way.

[Isgrimnur]

Google "santorum". Or better yet, don't if you value your sanity. And certainly not from a work machine.

[El Guapo]

Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

Enjoy it? I don't even understand it. I clearly missed something along the way.

An online personality - I think it was Dan Savage, though I'm not sure and could be wrong about that - started a campaign to define "Santorum" as a particularly disgusting mix of bodily fluids. You can google it if you want a more precise definition than that. A lot of the Santorum comments in the thread are playing off of that.

My understanding is that this was in response to Santorum's awful anti-gay rights positions. I'd have thought that a better way to respond would be to call him a bigot, but what do I know.

[Kraken]

Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing?

Enjoy it? I don't even understand it. I clearly missed something along the way.

An online personality - I think it was Dan Savage, though I'm not sure and could be wrong about that - started a campaign to define "Santorum" as a particularly disgusting mix of bodily fluids. You can google it if you want a more precise definition than that. A lot of the Santorum comments in the thread are playing off of that.

My understanding is that this was in response to Santorum's awful anti-gay rights positions. I'd have thought that a better way to respond would be to call him a bigot, but what do I know.

Thanks for explaining; that one went right past me. Now it can keep right on going.

[Defiant]

It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

[Defiant]

I don't know if Palin is going to run in 2012, but it looks like Tina Fey will be

[msduncan]

It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

While the special election in NY was in a Republican district, it was in NY. I remain skeptical that all the Democrats swept in with Obama from southern and heartland states will be on stable ground in 2012.

[Defiant]

It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

While the special election in NY was in a Republican district, it was in NY. I remain skeptical that all the Democrats swept in with Obama from southern and heartland states will be on stable ground in 2012.

Are you saying that Demorats who were freshmen in 2008 will be vulnerable in 2012? While possibly true, those would have to be representatives who also won in 2010. IIRC, incumbents are most vulnerable in their first reelection, and then become a lot less vulnerable.

If you're saying that you're skeptical that a republican loss in a republican stronghold in the liberal north east will translate into republican losses
in the south, then I agree.

[Holman]

No one doubts that Deep Red will stay red. The question is, Whither Purple?

[El Guapo]

It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Dems see chance for payback in 2012 (the special election isn't the only factor mentioned, but it's one of them)

While the special election in NY was in a Republican district, it was in NY. I remain skeptical that all the Democrats swept in with Obama from southern and heartland states will be on stable ground in 2012.

I don't think that the district being in NY is all that important. It was a Republican district, so it doesn't really matter that much that other districts in New York are more democratic.

I think whether the election has any predictive value for 2012 has more to do with the role that the Ryan Medicare proposal had on the election. If that was a significant factor in the democrat winning, and if the proposal remains prominent and remains unpopular in 2012, then the race could have predictive value. If not, then probably not.

[Mr. Fed]

Am I the only one here who doesn't enjoy the Santorum thing? It's so juvenile - basically just a dussied up version of calling him a poopyhead. And it only makes me think more about the, uh, imagery that is invoked, which is hardly something I want to do.

Plus I think it demeans opposition to Santorum. The guy's an extremist nutjob like Palin, only able to put together more coherent answers to questions. This stuff makes it look like his opponents are a bunch of giggling teenagers, while there are very good, substantive reasons to be appalled by his candidacy.

It's juvenile. I think the defense would be that Santorum's approach to denigrating gays was juvenile as well, and aimed at the same lizard brain that this was -- by talking about man-on-dog, he was not exactly aiming for hearts and minds. Savage probably figures that this is poetic justice.

[Holman]

And, too, Dan Savage's column deals with topics like orgy etiquette and safe fisting and which kinds of nipple-clips won't leave painful abrasions. I don't know if he ever expected his coinage to go national the way it has.

[Exodor]

Pawlenty's economic plan? Cut taxes three times as much as Bush

-Cutting the top individual income tax rate down to 25 percent;
– Having just two income tax brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent;
– Eliminating all taxation on capital gains, dividends, and estates;
– Cutting the corporate tax rate down to 15 percent

Yeah, that'll take care of that pesky deficit!

[gbasden]

Pawlenty's economic plan? Cut taxes three times as much as Bush

How on earth does any rational human being look at the last ten years and think that the answer to our problems is to radically cut taxes? At this point it's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA" at the top of your lungs to drown out reality.

[Smoove_B]

There was a bit about the disconnect on TPM today:

By a wide margin, more Americans think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflated the national debt than the percentage who blame domestic spending or the tax cuts enacted in the past decade for doing the same, according to a Pew poll released Tuesday.

Those beliefs actually run counter to data recently released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which showed that the Bush-era tax cuts have been the single biggest factor in ballooning the federal deficit. While the wars have also contributed greatly to the deficit, Pew's findings illuminate how Americans more readily perceive the visceral aspects of federal budgetary policy.

...

According to the CBPP, the Bush-era tax cuts by far account for the largest share of the federal deficit. Combined with the Iraq and Afghan wars, those policies will make up around 50% of the overall deficit by 2019, according to CBPP's figures.

[msduncan]

Funny, I thought that the blame for the deficit is on the assholes that refuse to ever cut spending -- EVER -- to counter allowing American citizens to keep more of the money they earn. That kinda runs counter to this tired and repeated mantra that implies that the assholes in Washington (both sides) should somehow be entitled to waste most of what we earn trying to control, guide, and protect every phase of our lives.

[gbasden]

Funny, I thought that the blame for the deficit is on the assholes that refuse to ever cut spending -- EVER -- to counter allowing American citizens to keep more of the money they earn. That kinda runs counter to this tired and repeated mantra that implies that the assholes in Washington (both sides) should somehow be entitled to waste most of what we earn trying to control, guide, and protect every phase of our lives.

Most? Are you kidding? We have much, much lower taxes already than do the rest of the industrialized world.

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000.1 Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent.

As a country we've decided we want to fight a bunch of wars overseas, pay for health care for the elderly and keep our bridges from collapsing. Why don't we try behaving like adults and pay for the things we want?

[msduncan]

Funny, I thought that the blame for the deficit is on the assholes that refuse to ever cut spending -- EVER -- to counter allowing American citizens to keep more of the money they earn. That kinda runs counter to this tired and repeated mantra that implies that the assholes in Washington (both sides) should somehow be entitled to waste most of what we earn trying to control, guide, and protect every phase of our lives.

Most? Are you kidding? We have much, much lower taxes already than do the rest of the industrialized world.

The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD. In 2003 taxes in the United States, including all levels of government, amounted to 25.6 percent of GDP, down from 29.6 percent of GDP in 2000.1 Other countries in the G7 raised 33.9 percent of GDP, while non-G7 OECD countries raised 34.7 percent.

As a country we've decided we want to fight a bunch of wars overseas, pay for health care for the elderly and keep our bridges from collapsing. Why don't we try behaving like adults and pay for the things we want?

So because the rest of the world -- decidedly socialist -- has made decisions to have even higher taxes and that means we should too (or are somehow backward if we don't)?

Please enlighten me as to why we should follow in the rest of the world's footsteps instead of scaling back our government in favor of more personal and financial freedoms?

-- I'm paying loads of Ad Valorum and state income taxes to keep bridges from collapsing
-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.
-- Military defense is one of the few priorities the Founders charged the Federal government with.


The great social experiment in government is failing. Prior to the 1930's socialization of government, we had surpluses and were progressing by leaps and bounds. From the 1930's onward the march for government to have an increasing role in your life, your future, and your happiness has driven us to this point in time -- when none of the massive social government experiments are working to raise people's status, reduce crime, or any of the other goals they were set out to tackle, and they are all going flat bankrupt.

[gbasden]

So because the rest of the world -- decidedly socialist -- has made decisions to have even higher taxes and that means we should too (or are somehow backward if we don't)?

Please enlighten me as to why we should follow in the rest of the world's footsteps instead of scaling back our government in favor of more personal and financial freedoms?

-- I'm paying loads of Ad Valorum and state income taxes to keep bridges from collapsing
-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.
-- Military defense is one of the few priorities the Founders charged the Federal government with.


The great social experiment in government is failing. Prior to the 1930's socialization of government, we had surpluses and were progressing by leaps and bounds. From the 1930's onward the march for government to have an increasing role in your life, your future, and your happiness has driven us to this point in time -- when none of the massive social government experiments are working to raise people's status, reduce crime, or any of the other goals they were set out to tackle, and they are all going flat bankrupt.

Those socialist havens like the Czech Republic, Japan, Australia and Spain?

When is the last time you saw people literally starve to death? If you've read any kind of history, how could you want to go back to the conditions that were prevalent in the New Your tenements at the turn of the century? Does your definition of free enterprise include prostituting your children to survive? What is your definition of progress?

Stripping out the safety net is great when you're part of the group that's got it good. It's pretty sucktastic when you aren't. And, unfortunately, we keep having more and more that aren't.

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.[3] The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.[3] The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile.[3]

In addition to unequal wealth distribution, it is also difficult for individuals in the lower income distributions to gain economic mobility which inhibits their ability to accumulate wealth.[6] In 2006, children in the lowest 20% of the income distribution only had a 17% chance of making it to the upper 40% of the income distribution.[6] In 2004, children in the lowest 20% of the wealth distribution had only a 7% chance to make it to the top wealth distribution.[6]

In other words, wealthy parents tend to produce wealthy children, and poor parents tend to produce poor children. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics shows how stratification is becoming worse and worse since 1984. The lowest percentile has become worse, and the highest percentile has become wealthier. The fifth percentile has dropped further into negative net worth, while the 90th percentile has gained over four hundred points within the last twenty one years.[7]

[Zarathud]

Prior to the 1930's socialization of government, we had surpluses and were progressing by leaps and bounds.

That wasn't intended to be a factual statement, was it?

The U.S. Treasury shows national debt since the second fiscal year for the U.S. Government, when the Revolutionary War debts were adopted by the national government. 1791-1849, 1850-1899, 1900-1949, 1950-1999 and 2000-2010.

But you don't have to believe those figures.

Source: The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there were 14 surpluses and only 2 deficits. The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the War of 1812. In the first 20 years following the War of 1812, 18 surpluses were experienced and the US paid off 99.97% of its debt.

The second dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. In the following 47 years America returned to the practice of running surpluses during times of peace experiencing 36 surpluses and only 11 deficits. During this period 55% of the US national debt was paid off.

Even with those years of surpluses, the World War II debt wasn't fully paid. Still, paying for 55% of war debt shows better "fiscal responsibility." At least then, we paid relatively high tax to support the troops, rather than demanding more tax cuts while fighting two wars.

[Holman]

Freedom isn't free.

[Isgrimnur]

The landowners have learned nothing, in spite of the war and of changed social and political conditions. They still intend to exploit their social position and their temporary advantage, to make no sacrifices and to profit as much as they can, even at the cost of their country and of other social classes

Spoiler:

Military officer, Poland, Febraury 1920

[Teggy]

Yeah, this is going to be entertaining. Mrowr!

Palin adviser slams Bachmann strategist Ed Rollins for dissing the ex-governor

[Smoove_B]

Goodnight Newt

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

[Scuzz]

republican leadership is pathetic...........

[Isgrimnur]

Goodnight Newt

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's campaign manager, senior strategists and key aides in early delegate-selection states all resigned on Thursday, a mass exodus that leaves his hopes of winning the Republican nomination in tatters.

[Newcastle]

According to Politico:

“The professional team came to the realization that the direction of the campaign they sought and Newt vision for campaign were incompatible,” said Carney.

Gingrich was intent on using technology and standing out at debates to get traction while his advisers believed he needed to run a campaign that incorporated both traditional, grassroots techniques as well as new ideas.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 ... z1OoL5FAa2" target="_blank

I really wonder if difference in strategy such as grassroots V. technology is the main divide here. I think there is something else afoot. While I do agree with teh staff, that you need a very comprehensive strategy in order to win in iowa, and you really need a strong grassroots organization. Skimping on that is crazy.

It almost looks like to me that Gingrinch wanted to skimp on paying for a full fledged campaign. That's almost what it looks like. Since you figure ground lvl organizers make about 1500-2500/month...and have close to say 150-200 in the state (iowa in december, not summer staff)...thats bout 500k/month thats in base staff, not even taking into account the higher ups. Then take into account advertising and such.

Depending solely on technology (while great) and campaign debates is nice...but those are really "cheap"ways to campaign.

Be curious how this turns out...bad news for newt though.

[msduncan]

I think Newt is finished after this exodus. He wasn't fully committed (or didn't show commitment) to do what it takes to win the job.

Will be interesting to see where some of these people land....

[Holman]

I think Newt is finished after this exodus. He wasn't fully committed (or didn't show commitment) to do what it takes to win the job.

Will be interesting to see where some of these people land....

At least a couple of them have ties to Rick Perry and have organized his campaigns.

[Exodor]

Newt's not giving up

I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles

[Mr. Fed]

This won't slow down Newt at all. He's been working with a younger, more attractive campaign staff for months.

[pr0ner]

republican leadership is pathetic...........

How does Newt's campaign team pulling the eject handle lead you to this conclusion?

[El Guapo]

-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

[Arcanis]

-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Squirrels: More Capitalist than the rest of the country. Furrier too (in most cases)

[El Guapo]

-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Squirrels: More Capitalist than the rest of the country. Furrier too (in most cases)

Just watch out for those socialist bees.

[LordMortis]

-- People should plan ahead in their lives instead of relying on the government to plan ahead for them. Do Squirrels just decide to let a council of squirrels put aside enough buried acorns to get them through the winter? You're damn right they don't, because they'd starve to death.

This is awesome. Yes, *that's* why squirrels don't have government-run acorn collection. God bless them and their freedom-loving agenda.

Squirrels: More Capitalist than the rest of the country. Furrier too (in most cases)

Just watch out for those socialist bees.

I was thinking the same thing about ants and wondered if they were actually socialist, despotic, or aristocratic.

[Smoove_B]

I was thinking the same thing about ants and wondered if they were actually socialist, despotic, or aristocratic.

You'd have to ask Aesop.

In recent times the fable has again been put to political use by both sides in the social debate between the enterprise culture and those who consider the advantaged have a responsibility towards the disadvantaged. A modern satirical version of the story, originally written in 1994, has the grasshopper calling a press conference at the beginning of the winter to complain about socio-economic inequity, and being given the ant's house. This version was written by Pittsburgh talk show guru Jim Quinn as an attack on the Clinton administration's social programm in the USA. In 2008 Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin also updated the story to satirize the policies of 'Barack Cicada'.

[LordMortis]

I was thinking the same thing about ants and wondered if they were actually socialist, despotic, or aristocratic.

You'd have to ask Aesop.

In recent times the fable has again been put to political use by both sides in the social debate between the enterprise culture and those who consider the advantaged have a responsibility towards the disadvantaged. A modern satirical version of the story, originally written in 1994, has the grasshopper calling a press conference at the beginning of the winter to complain about socio-economic inequity, and being given the ant's house. This version was written by Pittsburgh talk show guru Jim Quinn as an attack on the Clinton administration's social programm in the USA. In 2008 Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin also updated the story to satirize the policies of 'Barack Cicada'.

I'm all about the grasshopper and that was from even before you sent me your Quinn propaganda. That we continue to grasshopper bash in favor of environmentally devastating antist subservience to an unstated higher cause is the continued bane of my ant farm existence.

Piece of sand?

[Freezer-TPF-]

This won't slow down Newt at all. He's been working with a younger, more attractive campaign staff for months.

He couldn't keep his old staff because he worked too hard and loved his country too much.