This is going to sound really odd. . .but since the pres is little more than a figure head. . .can we like vote a turtle or something in to office in '12 so that the friggin anti-dem/anti-con parodies can stop . . .the latest comments over on AmIRight are so dominated by political bull crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. . .seriously, let's vote a 35 year old turtle into office, they'll move just as quickly on things as any president we have that's living and they'll never say stuff that people will gasp over, and they are cute figureheads. . .and just to make another first--how about a female turtle. . .make everyone happy

That would make a fine parody :)

Heretic!  Thou shalt vote in a Penguin and none other

Thing is.. if you vote in a turtle, he'd end up appointing turtles as chiefs of staff and the like.. and like the ol' woman said it'll be turtles all the way down.

You could always do "Turtle-won election" to "Californication".. somehow that OS seems to lend itself to ridiculous concepts.

This is going to sound really odd. . .but since the pres is little more than a figure head. . .can we like vote a turtle or something in to office in '12 so that the friggin anti-dem/anti-con parodies can stop . . .the latest comments over on AmIRight are so dominated by political bull crap from people who don't know what they are talking about. . .seriously, let's vote a 35 year old turtle into office, they'll move just as quickly on things as any president we have that's living and they'll never say stuff that people will gasp over, and they are cute figureheads. . .and just to make another first--how about a female turtle. . .make everyone happy


Oh, I misread, yiou said tUrtle I though you said Tuttle, as in Fred Tuttle who ran  against Pat Leahy last round.  Check out the movie Man with a Plan, which came out before that election.

Ah, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.  That son of a gun has been involved with politics 25 years before I was even born.  I think it's about time he got into office.  Am I being serious, no.  However, ask yourself one important question, "Would he do any worse than George W Bush?".  Seriously, that has to be on the mind of every future president for at least the rest of my life.  The way I see it, a President would have to Nuke the United States in order to do that.   

I speak too soon most likely.  I imagine that since I can't imagine a worse president than Bush, I'll live to see one.  According to conspiracy theorist, Obama.  However, he hasn't gotten the bullcut and grown the small mustache yet like he was "supposed" to. 

I can't believe you'd want a turtle in office. They're ugly and wrinkly and smelly. You know, it's turtle supporters like you who are destroying America. Do you live in the water or on land? Pick a side - we're at war! I've had enough of you and your pond-scum agenda. It's time for a change. It's time for... a bunny.

Bunnies are clearly more adorable than turtles. They're the only ones in the animal kingdom who are up to the job of running this great nation. They also don't hate freedom, unlike certain reptiles I could name, but won't, 'cause I'm classy like that.

Vote Bunny in 2012!

I think Mitt Romney gonna win the Republican Nomination for the 2012 presidency if he doesn't flip-flop like he is known for doing on issues. I don;t think Mitt is gonna beat Obama in the 2012 elections however the way it looks now.I think Sarah Palin is gonna run in 2012 against Mitt but I don;t see her beating Mitt for the Republican Nomination for President unless Mitt flip-flops on issues. I think the 2012 Republican Nomination for Presidency is Mitt Romney's to lose.

I'm hoping the Republicans pick someone entirely different from who they ran in 2008.  Mark Sanford would be a much more palatable choice than any of their recent candidates.

Granted, Romney has the connections and money, Huckabee has the religious appeal, and Palin has the idiot vote.

I think Mitt Romney gonna win the Republican Nomination for the 2012 presidency if he doesn't flip-flop like he is known for doing on issues.
Could the Republicans really be that stupid?  I mean, McCain only won the nomination because he wasn't Romney (who did appear to be possibly the biggest slimeball ever to put his name forward... and that is saying something)

Republicans might still be looking at Bobby Jindal.  I've seen a few Jindal/Palin 2012 bumper stickers.  8-P 

Republicans might still be looking at Bobby Jindal.  I've seen a few Jindal/Palin 2012 bumper stickers.   8-P 


There was a time when I thought he'd be a good candidate, but at this point, I think he'd be better as a running mate.  He's like a smarter version of Palin (which isn't hard).  He's basically there to appease the Religious Right.

Republicans might still be looking at Bobby Jindal.  I've seen a few Jindal/Palin 2012 bumper stickers.   8-P 


8-P

8-P


Like I said.

Well the question is if the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will stay together or divorce each other in the election. My feeling it will be the former. I saw the split starting when McCain's office started attacking Palin with Ben Stein even comparing her to a whore. Recently several fiscal Republicans have made a point on being for gay marriage including Chenny. This in my opinion is a public demonstration of separation from the moral agendas of the religious right, and an alliance with Libertarians and other independents.     


If the GOP goes back to being the Party of Lincoln, they might have more of my votes.

Fiscal conservatism makes sense in many respects.  Social conservatism is the part that is often really messed up.

The problem is that neither party has been very fiscally conservative in a while.  Clinton was fiscally conservative (as were the Republicans during the 90s), but ever since Bush entered power, the GOP became big government like never before.

Then again, with the current bailouts, the Democrats have topped their spending.

I don't know...  at this point, we either need a truly fiscally conservative government or a truly socialist one.  This halfway stuff isn't working.

Does anybody think "Tim Pawlenty" gonna run for the 2012 GOP nomination since he isn't gonna run for a 3rd term as governer of Minnesota?

Here's a poll for the GOP 2012 presidental nomination by CNN:

Huckabeee 22%
Palin-22%
Romney-21%
Gingrich-13%

Does anyone think Obama will win again in 2012?

Does anyone think Obama will win again in 2012?


I think he probably will.  To me, the bigger mystery is whether or not the GOP takes back a legislative house.

I think he probably will.  To me, the bigger mystery is whether or not the GOP takes back a legislative house.


Not unless they adapt with the times...

Not unless they adapt with the times...


Indeed...  they really need to let the Libertarian-leaning ones take charge.

Does anybody think "Tim Pawlenty" gonna run for the 2012 GOP nomination since he isn't gonna run for a 3rd term as governer of Minnesota?

Here's a poll for the GOP 2012 presidental nomination by CNN:

Huckabeee 22%
Palin-22%
Romney-21%
Gingrich-13%

I don't really know much about Newt Gingrich, but the thought that other three could *ever* be considered serious candidates says a lot about the calibre of people available: Huckabee and Palin make GWB seem bright, and Romney is such a thoroughgoing sleazeball that the thought of him as president makes me shudder.

Are those really the sorts of people that Republicans want as president, or was it simply a case of saying "which of these would you prefer" in the poll?

I don't really know much about Newt Gingrich, but the thought that other three could *ever* be considered serious candidates says a lot about the calibre of people available: Huckabee and Palin make GWB seem bright, and Romney is such a thoroughgoing sleazeball that the thought of him as president makes me shudder.

Are those really the sorts of people that Republicans want as president, or was it simply a case of saying "which of these would you prefer" in the poll?


One thing you have to remember is that the kind of person who wants to run for president has at least some of the following characteristics:

1) a ton of money
2) major connections
3) massive amounts of charisma (at least for a core constituency)
4) a lust for power
5) a devotion to an ideology
6) a willingness to have your personal life under the microscope
7) a willingness to accept more responsibility than any corporate executive, yet get paid less than 90% of them
8 ) a willingness to be president during some of the worst economic times in recent memory
9) a willingness to have your every action criticized, whether fairly or unfairly
10) a willingness to possibly be assassinated

Given that many people who have some of these traits (and are willing to deal with the consequences mentioned) are total d-bags, the selection of candidates shouldn't be too surprising (and the fact that they have the religious nutjob vote).

Could the Republicans really be that stupid?  I mean, McCain only won the nomination because he wasn't Romney (who did appear to be possibly the biggest slimeball ever to put his name forward... and that is saying something)


Yes, and it wouldn't surprise me if Dick Cheney started sniffing around.  He was incognito during his tenure as ghost president, but now he has his daughter out there as a spokeswoman, they say she is a spokeswoman for the Republican party, but that isn't true.  We see more of him now than ever, he has four years to revamp his image and a lot of power.  It can happen here.

Yes, and it wouldn't surprise me if Dick Cheney started sniffing around.  He was incognito during his tenure as ghost president, but now he has his daughter out there as a spokeswoman, they say she is a spokeswoman for the Republican party, but that isn't true.  We see more of him now than ever, he has four years to revamp his image and a lot of power.  It can happen here.


Dick would never win a presidential election.  Palin might, but not Dick.

All the possible Republican nominees I've heard have been absolutely disgusting. 

There are a lot of things on the Democratic agenda I'm iffy on or downright disagree with, but at least I can respect the fact that Democrats talk to me like I'm an adult, whereas Republicans seem to cater to the lowest common denominator.  The very least I expect from a politician is to not have my intelligence insulted, and this is where the GOP always loses me: right at the get-go.

Dick would never win a presidential election.  Palin might, but not Dick.



The said that about the other Dick(Nixon), and it happened.  Never underestimate the idiocy of the voting public, after all, they voted for bush/cheney..... twice.

The said that about the other Dick(Nixon), and it happened.  Never underestimate the idiocy of the voting public, after all, they voted for bush/cheney..... twice.


Nixon was definitely creepy, but he never would've been able to win if it hadn't been for LBJ's sheer incompetence.

The problem is that the Republican Party is basically in the wilderness right now. They don't have a leader and they don't have any ideas. They all yearn for Reagan so they are following what Nancy said, "Just say 'No'." What really gets me is that they are all kowtowing to Rush-who is just a total blowhard. They are alienating many people who STILL call themselves Repubs and they are going to drive them out which will only shrink their numbers-so low, in fact that they may lose their National Party status. What they need is some charismatic figure to come out of the wilderness with a new message more in the center, and bring into the fold all those people who have left the party because it moved too far to the right. Will that happen? I don't know. But if it doesn't, the Republican Party is going to self-destruct and I don't know if I am enjoying watching it happen or if it is becoming so pathetic that I just can't watch anymore. 



Cat

If Sarah Palin gets into the presidency in 2012, people, including libertarians like me, are going to ask for George W Bush back!

If Sarah Palin gets into the presidency in 2012, people, including libertarians like me, are going to ask for George W Bush back!




While Palin would be worse than Bush, he wasn't exactly Libertarian-leaning.  In terms of policy, Palin is actually a little more Libertarian.

I'll take Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel over both of them.  I'd probably even take Romney and Guiliani as well.

But yeah, finding a sensible Libertarian in the GOP is difficult.  Ron Paul is about as good as it gets.

The problem is that the Republican Party is basically in the wilderness right now. They don't have a leader and they don't have any ideas. They all yearn for Reagan so they are following what Nancy said, "Just say 'No'." What really gets me is that they are all kowtowing to Rush-who is just a total blowhard. They are alienating many people who STILL call themselves Repubs and they are going to drive them out which will only shrink their numbers-so low, in fact that they may lose their National Party status. What they need is some charismatic figure to come out of the wilderness with a new message more in the center, and bring into the fold all those people who have left the party because it moved too far to the right. Will that happen? I don't know. But if it doesn't, the Republican Party is going to self-destruct and I don't know if I am enjoying watching it happen or if it is becoming so pathetic that I just can't watch anymore.   



Cat
Well the Democrats did go through the same thing circa 1995-1996 that the Republicans are going through now. Your are right the Republicans risk themselves as being a "fringe party"(Southern States US Party) I mean they don;t cater to latino's or black's or to women as a whole hardly right now. As for the Republican Party I thought Romney was gonna step up to the plate and maybe the leader of the party but I don;t think so now.


The Republicans over what Rush Limbaugh I'm sure the Republican member's of the house and senate could care  less what Rush says on a day to day basis. I mean he's a talk show host.

You maybe right about certain Republicans getting driven out of the party(i.e. moderate republicans like John Hutsman for example.)

While Palin would be worse than Bush, he wasn't exactly Libertarian-leaning.  In terms of policy, Palin is actually a little more Libertarian.

I'll take Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel over both of them.  I'd probably even take Romney and Guiliani as well.

But yeah, finding a sensible Libertarian in the GOP is difficult.  Ron Paul is about as good as it gets.


I think you too my post too seriously and not enough humorously!

My point was that Sarah Palin would be a TERRIBLE president.  I'm all for having a female in the white house someday, hopefully one that is more concerned about our countries welfare and progress than she is about her being a woman, but Palin is not the right person for the job.

I think her presidency, if elected, would make George W Bush at worst, the "2nd to the worst ever president", if you get my drift.

I think you too my post too seriously and not enough humorously!

My point was that Sarah Palin would be a TERRIBLE president.   I'm all for having a female in the white house someday, hopefully one that is more concerned about our countries welfare and progress than she is about her being a woman, but Palin is not the right person for the job.

I think her presidency, if elected, would make George W Bush at worst, the "2nd to the worst ever president", if you get my drift.


My bad.  It's just that I've heard some Libertarian-leaning people say that they prefer Bush over Obama.  I'm not sure why, but it happens.

I think you too my post too seriously and not enough humorously!

My point was that Sarah Palin would be a TERRIBLE president.   I'm all for having a female in the white house someday, hopefully one that is more concerned about our countries welfare and progress than she is about her being a woman, but Palin is not the right person for the job.

I think her presidency, if elected, would make George W Bush at worst, the "2nd to the worst ever president", if you get my drift.
No, Jimmy Carter was a worse president that Bush(w.) was. Plus Bush is ranked 36th out of 43 presidents in a survey I have seen on the internet. James Buchannan was the worst president of all time according to that online poll I was looking at.

My bad.  It's just that I've heard some Libertarian-leaning people say that they prefer Bush over Obama.  I'm not sure why, but it happens.



This world makes me wonder more and more and more.

No, Jimmy Carter was a worse president that Bush(w.) was. Plus Bush is ranked 36th out of 43 presidents in a survey I have seen on the internet. James Buchanan was the worst president of all time according to that on line poll I was looking at.


*sigh* Considering what Buchanan had to deal with he is being judged unfairly.  Without him the Civil War would have started earlier although it was inevitable.  I will say though that he is listed as one of the greatest Attorneys in U.S. history.  Which makes me kinda think he should have stayed in the law firm.

*sigh* Considering what Buchanan had to deal with he is being judged unfairly.  Without him the Civil War would have started earlier although it was inevitable.  I will say though that he is listed as one of the greatest Attorneys in U.S. history.  Which makes me kinda think he should have stayed in the law firm.


Well being from Iowa, I've studied up on Herbert Hoover and I think his judgment is unfair as well.  He was simply a victim of circumstances and the whole, "Do nothing, it'll fix itself" approach had been tried in the past and it worked.

What he did during WWI to help win the war, and all of the good he did after his presidency are often over looked.  The man may have been a bad president, but a lot of people just plain judge him as a bad person in general.  The man was one of the greatest humanitarians this country has ever seen. 

Well being from Iowa, I've studied up on Herbert Hoover and I think his judgment is unfair as well.   He was simply a victim of circumstances and the whole, "Do nothing, it'll fix itself" approach had been tried in the past and it worked.

Uh... no.  The fix itself approach rarely ever works.  It didn't work before Hoover entered office either.

The problem is that Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were mostly strict Libertarians in economic policy, which failed pretty miserably due to a lack of proper regulation on buying stocks on margin and on reserve requirements for banks.

*sigh* Considering what Buchanan had to deal with he is being judged unfairly.  Without him the Civil War would have started earlier although it was inevitable.  I will say though that he is listed as one of the greatest Attorneys in U.S. history.  Which makes me kinda think he should have stayed in the law firm.


What Buchanan had to deal with was very difficult, and the war was possibly inevitable, but Buchanan did nothing to fix the situation.  Inaction is judged pretty harshly by historians, but for good reason.

Buchanan was complicit in the Dred Scott case, he handled the admission of Kansas in a very naive way, he weakened our currency during the Panic of 1857, and handled the Utah War very incompetently.  His failures make Bush look like George Washington by comparison.

What Buchanan had to deal with was very difficult, and the war was possibly inevitable, but Buchanan did nothing to fix the situation.  Inaction is judged pretty harshly by historians, but for good reason.

Buchanan was complicit in the Dred Scott case, he handled the admission of Kansas in a very naive way, he weakened our currency during the Panic of 1857, and handled the Utah War very incompetently.  His failures make Bush look like George Washington by comparison.



I do have to agree with you on the Dred Scott case.  Kansas would have been a mess with or without him.  The Utah War, you don't mean the Mormon War do you?  Yeah, yeah, I know he was a terrible President.  However I am from Lancaster PA so defending him is well . . . inevitable.

Uh... no.  The fix itself approach rarely ever works.  It didn't work before Hoover entered office either.

The problem is that Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were mostly strict Libertarians in economic policy, which failed pretty miserably due to a lack of proper regulation on buying stocks on margin and on reserve requirements for banks.


It had to worked. 1893, 1907 both years of great panics and both times there wasn't a HUGE plan anything comparable to what FDR did to fix the problem either time.  Infact there was little governmental interference at all, both times the economy more or less "fixed itself".   

Coolidge was a libertarian more by lifestyle habits than he was by passion.  The man slept all day, he just plain didn't want to be bothered. 

It had to worked. 1893, 1907 both years of great panics and both times there wasn't a HUGE plan anything comparable to what FDR did to fix the problem either time.  Infact there was little governmental interference at all, both times the economy more or less "fixed itself".   

Coolidge was a libertarian more by lifestyle habits than he was by passion.  The man slept all day, he just plain didn't want to be bothered. 


The Panic of 1893 was able to be fixed without government interference only because of the Klondike Gold Rush and public confidence in President McKinley.  The Panic of 1907 was mostly fixed by J.P. Morgan, but the process would have been much easier to implement had the U.S. had a Central Bank.

So, overall, when not depending on government to fix something as severe as these panics, it usually requires the intervention of ultrawealthy magnates (who often wield a dangerous amount of power) or dramatic discoveries of plentiful resources (like the Klondike Gold Rush).  Since both choices are rather unpredictable, government intervention is generally a safer bet.

I'm just wondering what all of this has to do with the 2012 election.  ???



Cat

I'm just wondering what all of this has to do with the 2012 election.  ???



Cat


I think in a nutshell, we're saying that we hope that history helps us to decide who to vote for.  I'll admit I voted for George W Bush round 1.  I sure didn't round two, but I did round 1.  Yes, I hang my head in shame.

I'm just wondering what all of this has to do with the 2012 election.  ???

Cat


Lessons of the past help decide actions of the future.  We tried the less regulation route with monetary policy several times in the past, but now, regulation is badly needed.

This is relevant to the 2012 election in that Republicans mostly fight regulation where it is needed.

Well being from Iowa, I've studied up on Herbert Hoover and I think his judgment is unfair as well.  He was simply a victim of circumstances and the whole, "Do nothing, it'll fix itself" approach had been tried in the past and it worked.
 


When and for whom?