Octopus Overlords

Both parties have very high unfavorable ratings.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ord-highs/" target="_blank

Rick Perry drops hints at Aspen shindig that he is running (accidentally called himself President, oh teh funny!).

Rick Perry says something that actually sounds like principled, federalist small-government conservatism ("what New York does is its business"), loathsome theocrats tug at his leash, he comes running back to fake-conservative fake-federalism like the little bitch he is.

Gary Johnson is the kind of Republican I could get behind.

“Have you ever heard Rick Perry talk? I thought when I listened to him talk, I thought he was doing a parody of George Bush. And I was looking around to see if anyone else saw the humor in that. And it wasn’t. It was just the way that he talked,” said Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who’s running his own long shot campaign.

Mr. Fed wrote:Rick Perry says something that actually sounds like principled, federalist small-government conservatism ("what New York does is its business"), loathsome theocrats tug at his leash, he comes running back to fake-conservative fake-federalism like the little bitch he is.

The problem is that federalism almost completely undermines the social conservative opposition to gay marriage. It's one thing for New York to have different taxation and spending levels from Texas - what does that matter to Texas? But the social conservative opposition to gay marriage is a mix of: (1) it devalues traditional (i.e. straight) marriage; and/or (2) it is an affront to God. Neither of those harms really relates to federalism.

Basically, if it doesn't harm god-fearing straight Texans to have two dudes in New York married to each other, it's not clear why it would harm them to have those dudes married in Austin.

From feds link:

“Our Constitution was designed to respect states…I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the Constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment. That amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman and it protects the states from being told otherwise,” he affirmed.

Luckily it also protects the states from being able to decide otherwise. Hooray for respecting the states. I've lived in Texas for the entirety of Perry's time as Governor, but have mostly ignored him (yeah, I know). To contradict yourself that blatantly in subsequent breaths is impressive.

I don't know what's more frightening. The idea that he actually believes that logical wormhole, or that he's intellectually dishonest enough to use it anyway.

coopasonic wrote:From feds link:

“Our Constitution was designed to respect states.

Love this one. We had a government with strong states' rights. It was called the Articles of Confederation. And it freaking sucked.

More from the "things are not going Newt's way" file:

But if Newt is winning the Twitter primary, it's because of voter fraud. A former staffer tells us that his campaign hired a firm to boost his follower count, in part by creating fake accounts en masse:

Newt employs a variety of agencies whose sole purpose is to procure Twitter followers for people who are shallow/insecure/unpopular enough to pay for them. As you might guess, Newt is most decidedly one of the people to which these agencies cater.

About 80 percent of those accounts are inactive or are dummy accounts created by various "follow agencies,"...

Who needs friends when you can buy imaginary ones?

Mr. Fed wrote:Rick Perry says something that actually sounds like principled, federalist small-government conservatism ("what New York does is its business"), loathsome theocrats tug at his leash, he comes running back to fake-conservative fake-federalism like the little bitch he is.

To her credit, even Jennifer Rubin calls him out on this inconsistency.

That said, wouldn't it be both consistent and principled to reconcile those views as follows?

(a) At any given moment, the constitution and amendments define the frontier of states' rights.
(b) Amendments to the constitution move that border.
(c) If there is no pertinent amendment to the constitution, then the definition of 'marriage' is left to the states.
(d) Once there is an amendment, the definition of 'marriage' is no longer left to the states.

In other words, Perry stands accused of inconsistency because he started by claiming something like (c) but (when pressed) landed on something like (d).

He hasn't done this, afaik, but couldn't he reconcile these logically by saying either

(1) that he's a federalist except where amendment and incorporation require him not to be? Or
(2) that he hopes an amendment will provide a federal definition, but that he'll defer to the sundry states unless/until it does?

Grundbegriff wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:Rick Perry says something that actually sounds like principled, federalist small-government conservatism ("what New York does is its business"), loathsome theocrats tug at his leash, he comes running back to fake-conservative fake-federalism like the little bitch he is.

To her credit, even Jennifer Rubin calls him out on this inconsistency.

That said, wouldn't it be both consistent and principled to reconcile those views as follows?

(a) At any given moment, the constitution and amendments define the frontier of states' rights.
(b) Amendments to the constitution move that border.
(c) If there is no pertinent amendment to the constitution, then the definition of 'marriage' is left to the states.
(d) Once there is an amendment, the definition of 'marriage' is no longer left to the states.

In other words, Perry stands accused of inconsistency because he started by claiming something like (c) but (when pressed) landed on something like (d).

He hasn't done this, afaik, but couldn't he reconcile these logically by saying either

(1) that he's a federalist except where amendment and incorporation require him not to be? Or
(2) that he hopes an amendment will provide a federal definition, but that he'll defer to the sundry states unless/until it does?

But a principled federalist conservative wouldn't be pushing for amendments to the Constitution to federalize matters traditionally left to the states, any more than they'd be pushing to repeal the Second Amendment.

Mr. Fed wrote:But a principled federalist conservative wouldn't be pushing for amendments to the Constitution to federalize matters traditionally left to the states, any more than they'd be pushing to repeal the Second Amendment.

That would depend, would it not, on whether the principled federalist is driven by tradition rather than some other engine of ideology. Not every conservative is a Burkean.

The vector of federalism is not necessarily invariably toward the periphery, and appeals to tradition may be regarded as noxious. In other words, there are Dead Text federalists, and there are Living Text federalists.

( And Akhil Amar is an originalist, dontcha know. )

Mr. Fed wrote: But a principled federalist conservative wouldn't be pushing for amendments to the Constitution to federalize matters traditionally left to the states, any more than they'd be pushing to repeal the Second Amendment.

Isn't it because if New York recognizes gay marriage, then the federal courts (at some point if they haven't already) are going to make Texas recognize New York's marriages?

So while it's left up to the states currently, it's just a matter of time before it's forced on them whether they want it or not, unless there is a constitutional amendment.

It seems to me that every state having the ability to set its own laws about what sort of marriages it conducts, but being required to give full credit to the marriages established in other states when those persons move across state lines, would be Federalism working, not failing.

Just like when I couldn't buy beer in Kansas on a Sunday, but I could drive into Missouri and buy it there and drive it back in. It was still legal to have the beer in Kansas.

The rent is too damn low!

A candidate who ran for New York governor because "the rent is too damn high" says he's being evicted from his rent-controlled Manhattan apartment because his landlord wants to charge a new tenant more.

Jimmy McMillan tells the New York Post he pays $872 for the rent-controlled East Village apartment.

He says the landlord wants him out because "my rent is too damn low."

Yeah. He's running for president.

I love the rationale:

The former Arkansas governor elaborated: “Have Donald Trump take the job for 90 days. It’s a game changer.”

“Right now, the president needs something that is truly a game changer, and he doesn’t have that in Geithner,” Huckabee said.

By that logic, appointing Bernie Madoff as Treasury Secretary is even more of a game changer.

POLITICO says Rick Perry will announce on Saturday that he is running for President, which is sort of the opposite of secession.

It's going to be a bad day for Mitt Romney.

Holman wrote:It's going to be a bad day for Mitt Romney.

Yup. If Perry announce, as now seems inevitable, he'll go all the way.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Holman wrote:It's going to be a bad day for Mitt Romney.

Yup. If Perry announce, as now seems inevitable, he'll go all the way.

I'm not sure I buy that. I think the powers that be might not fund Perry as well as they would have before the debt debacle.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

Holman wrote:
It's going to be a bad day for all of us.

Fixed that for you.

gbasden wrote:

Holman wrote:
It's going to be a bad day for all of us.

Fixed that for you.

Untrue. If he wins, it will get him the hell out of Texas, and that's a good day for me, on balance.

geezer wrote:

gbasden wrote:

Holman wrote:
It's going to be a bad day for all of us.

Fixed that for you.

Untrue. If he wins, it will get him the hell out of Texas, and that's a good day for me, on balance.

Who's the Lt. Gov?

Several polls came out today that showed that House R are in trouble. How this translates into the senate & presidential I am not sure of. But I would highly expect right now that the House R are going to be swept out.

CNN link. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2" target="_blank


Same poll but Politico's article on it: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60952.html" target="_blank

I saw another article that said these lows matched the lows in congress prior to the 94 & 10 elections.

Got one word for Boehner, Cantor & company...if you want to be re-elected..."compromise". That hard line shit will not fly.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Holman wrote:It's going to be a bad day for Mitt Romney.

Yup. If Perry announce, as now seems inevitable, he'll go all the way.

I would tend to agree, and I imagine his answer for every question is likely to be a simple one:

Media: "Governor, isn't your position on the 10th Amendment inconsistent with principled federalism?"

Perry: "37% of all U.S. jobs created since June, 2009, were created in Texas."

Media: "Governor, if you are elected President, do you plan on instituting an evangelical theocracy?"

Perry: "37% of all U.S. jobs created since June, 2009, were created in Texas."

Media: "Governor, what insight do you have on the debt crisis?"

Perry: "37% of all U.S. jobs created since June, 2009, were created in Texas."

Media: "Governor, are the salacious rumours of your questionable sexuality true?"

Perry: "37% of all U.S. jobs created since June, 2009, were created in Texas."

Etc, etc, etc.

(Yes, plenty of those jobs were low-paying, but with over 9% unemployment, that's obviously going to be Perry's mantra).

Pyperkub wrote:

geezer wrote:

gbasden wrote:

Holman wrote:
It's going to be a bad day for all of us.

Fixed that for you.

Untrue. If he wins, it will get him the hell out of Texas, and that's a good day for me, on balance.

Who's the Lt. Gov?

David Dewhurst. A guy who was thought to be sort of reasonable but has become a wingnut toadie as the wingnuts have run roughshod over Texas. But we're so mired in social conservative bullshit and good old boy cronyism that he can't possibly be a change for the worse.

Rick Perry is a set of drifting, wispy clouds of fiscal sanity and competence failing to conceal a blazing, carcinogenic sun of pandering social totalitarianism and yee-haw secessionist bullshit.

But he can still probably beat Obama.

At least he won't be a disappointment.

Saw a Politico article about a supposedly leaked Obama plan to attack the Romney campaign early. Nothing special with that but I did find it an interesting read.

The only thing that would be a little interesting would be an attack by the Obama campaign on Romney's faith. While I do not think there is much of a chance Obama will go after Romney's faith (especially with the Senate majority leader being of the same faith) I could see it becoming an issue that his supporters push.

As a practicing member of the LDS faith I would find it disappointing if the debate dropped to that level. Although it would lead to an interesting dynamic in the GOP because the people which have a hard time supporting Romney are the evangelical GOP members and actually caused a problem for Romney last cycle. If some democrats (especially if it is the President) start firing shots at Romney's faith does that leave it off the table in GOP circles?

I don't know if I could support a Romney administration but I do find it intriguing if Obama already has a plan in motion for a single republican candidate. If it even is true.

Forgot the article link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60921.html

And for interest on Mitt Romney being "weird": http://www.salon.com/news/mitt_romney/? ... mney_weird

I don't see how Obama could possibly make Romney's faith an issue. I'd think the main people who might care about that are evangelicals, who tend to tilt right and so probably aren't voting for Obama in huge numbers anyhow. And during the GOP primary I'd think the best way to get primary voters to rally behind Romney would be attacks on him from Obama, particularly connected to religion.

Mr. Fed wrote:Rick Perry is a set of drifting, wispy clouds of fiscal sanity and competence failing to conceal a blazing, carcinogenic sun of pandering social totalitarianism and yee-haw secessionist bullshit.

But he can still probably beat Obama.

At least he won't be a disappointment.

Maybe we could just tell Perry that Texas did seceed, and let him run for President of Texas.

El Guapo wrote:I don't see how Obama could possibly make Romney's faith an issue. I'd think the main people who might care about that are evangelicals, who tend to tilt right and so probably aren't voting for Obama in huge numbers anyhow. And during the GOP primary I'd think the best way to get primary voters to rally behind Romney would be attacks on him from Obama, particularly connected to religion.

I agree completely. I don't buy that they would use religion. Like I said it would probably help Romney get out of the primaries. His flip flop past is a much stronger point to bring up, especially with independents. I just thought it was interesting it was even being brought up at this point by those in Democratic circles when the field is far from set.

El Guapo wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:Rick Perry is a set of drifting, wispy clouds of fiscal sanity and competence failing to conceal a blazing, carcinogenic sun of pandering social totalitarianism and yee-haw secessionist bullshit.

But he can still probably beat Obama.

At least he won't be a disappointment.

Maybe we could just tell Perry that Texas did seceed, and let him run for President of Texas.

But then he would have to run against Chuck Norris... not a good race to be running.

I don't see how a Muslim like Obama would attack him on religion. Glass houses and all that.

jfk's catholicism was an issue when he ran.The fear being he'd be controlled by the pope.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60952.html

I would bet everythign i had that they have plans in place for all candidates....even down to herman cain.

I would bet they have blue prints or outlines of people who "hinted"/flirted at running. IE thune, Christie...etc.

i would bet they have staffers following all press conferences, and watching as many appearances as possible to record possible missteps.

I would bet the Obama campaign already has blueprints of mutilple type of attack ads to put in play.

I would be they've already strategized how they would compare/contrast Obama and any and all R candidates.

The obama campaign of 08 was an AMAZING machine. They had a lot of contingencies figured out and were amazingly detailed in how they approached their wins (look at how he beat Clinton in Texas during the primaries, they had targeted specific pockets to win that area). They went into areas where campaigns had historically ignored.

yeah the polls are looking bad for Obama, but I wouldnt bet against it with any of these field of R candidates.

His '12 campaign am sure will be a behemoth.

Newcastle wrote: yeah the polls are looking bad for Obama, but I wouldnt bet against it with any of these field of R candidates.

His '12 campaign am sure will be a behemoth.

Considering the high unemployment and Obama's general lack of principles I'm surprised his numbers are as high as they are.

And if there's one thing he's good at it's campaigning.

His favorite strategy is the rope-a-dope and his administration hasn't really had huge problems with leaks. I find the 'leaked' strategy from 'anonymous sources' highly amusing - and Romney of course already took the bait

Defiant wrote:Both parties have very high unfavorable ratings.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ord-highs/" target="_blank

The debt fight really hurt views of Republicans, at least according to one poll

Democratic Party: Favorable 47%, Unfavorable 47%

Republican Party: Favorable 33%, Unfavorable 59%

Damn, son.

Exodor wrote:

Newcastle wrote: yeah the polls are looking bad for Obama, but I wouldnt bet against it with any of these field of R candidates.

His '12 campaign am sure will be a behemoth.

Considering the high unemployment and Obama's general lack of principles I'm surprised his numbers are as high as they are.

I think, much like in '08, a reasonable, moderate Republican could pretty much destroy him. But in '12, I don't think those three adjectives can exist together.

Exodor wrote: The debt fight really hurt views of Republicans, at least according to one poll

Democratic Party: Favorable 47%, Unfavorable 47%

Republican Party: Favorable 33%, Unfavorable 59%

Damn, son.

After following like 4 links, I finally found the details of the report: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/image ... l.aug9.pdf" target="_blank

Americans still seem to dislike Pelosi and Reid a lot (more than Boehner), it's been fairly steady, while Boehner's has gotten worse.

More interesting is that Americans don't think their own representative deserves reelection (49-41, 48-45 among Registered Voters)

Their anger appears to be more directed at Republicans, but hits both:

On whether most Democrats deserve reelection, they say no 38-58 (39-57 RV)
On whether Republicans do, they say no 31-64 (31-65 RV)

On the Democratic party, Democrats have favorable opinions (92-6), while independents (33-57) and Republicans (11-85) don't
Republican party, Republicans have favorable opinions (80-17), while independents (24-66) and Democrats (14-81) don't.

The south seems to really feel their rep doesn't deserve reelection (29-56), feeling that most republicans dont deserve reelection (33-64), and most democrats too, but by a smaller margin (41-57)

geezer wrote:

Exodor wrote:

Newcastle wrote: yeah the polls are looking bad for Obama, but I wouldnt bet against it with any of these field of R candidates.

His '12 campaign am sure will be a behemoth.

Considering the high unemployment and Obama's general lack of principles I'm surprised his numbers are as high as they are.

I think, much like in '08, a reasonable, moderate Republican could pretty much destroy him. But in '12, I don't think those three adjectives can exist together.

And if Romney or Huntsman names a firebreather as VP (which seems highly likely), it would sink his campaign as surely as Palin sank McCain's.

geezer wrote:

Exodor wrote:

Newcastle wrote: yeah the polls are looking bad for Obama, but I wouldnt bet against it with any of these field of R candidates.

His '12 campaign am sure will be a behemoth.

Considering the high unemployment and Obama's general lack of principles I'm surprised his numbers are as high as they are.

I think, much like in '08, a reasonable, moderate Republican could pretty much destroy him. But in '12, I don't think those three adjectives can exist together.

I just don't think that is true about '08, although much more likely for '12. Given the damage done to the Reps during the debt ceiling fiasco, '12 is in question now too. Although '12 a ways away, and voters have short memories.