Doubling down on my prediction

Earlier I predicted that no matter how bad the economy is that President Obama will win a second term.  I’ve been thinking about this some more and I’m even more convinced that I’m right (though, again, I wish I were wrong).

The reason “It’s the economy, stupid” won’t carry the day this time is that all of the Republican candidates, following correct free market principles, believe the main thing the government should do in the face of a terrible economy is to do either nothing or to do less than what the government is doing now.   But the public wants the government to do something, anything.   The Republican message for the government to “get out of the way” is not going to have much traction with voters who want the government to do even more.  (And Obama will argue that he would indeed “do something” if it weren’t for the obstructionist conservatives in Congress, who, I further predict, will lose their majority in the House.)

Furthermore, the Republicans just do not have a candidate.  I hang around some political activist types, but I have found no one with any zeal at all for any of the Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul supporters.  I could be wrong about this.  Maybe there are hordes of devoted fans of Perry, Romney, Bachman, Cain, or the others, who will follow them anywhere.

Let’s test that here.  Are any of you readers of this blog enthusiastic loyalists of any of the Republican presidential candidates  (not counting Ron Paul, or if one of the campaigns is paying you to work for  them).  I don’t mean supporters of a candidate as the least bad candidate or as someone who might defeat Obama.  I mean passionate supporters for positive reasons.  The last election had candidates with that kind of support–Hilary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, certainly Barack Obama, but even John McCain.   I can’t find that for any of the candidates today.  But, again, I could be wrong.  I hope I am.  Prove me wrong.  I’ll feel a lot better.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Would it help in saying that God is still on the throne, Dr. Veith? :D

    (I’m a Calvinist. Go figure…)

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Would it help in saying that God is still on the throne, Dr. Veith? :D

    (I’m a Calvinist. Go figure…)

  • Dennis Peskey

    Let’s see: 2×0=? How long, oh Lord, how long?
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Let’s see: 2×0=? How long, oh Lord, how long?
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • SAL

    I think you’re right.
    Also, I don’t think the losing party in 2012 will exist in 2016. 2012 was really the last shot at a competitive election given the demographics.

  • SAL

    I think you’re right.
    Also, I don’t think the losing party in 2012 will exist in 2016. 2012 was really the last shot at a competitive election given the demographics.

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans will find reasons to be enthusiastic once they have a nominee and the fight is on. I think you guys are just trying to make we Democrats overconfident and inactive. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans will find reasons to be enthusiastic once they have a nominee and the fight is on. I think you guys are just trying to make we Democrats overconfident and inactive. :-D

  • WebMonk

    Passionate support? I haven’t had any of that for any candidates since … ever. And to make my malaise even worse, I don’t give a rip about what the candidates say or do during the primaries. Everyone is talking in a warped echo chamber, and so all sorts of positions will be claimed that may or may not reflect the candidate realities.

    I could see several of the candidates that I could feel good voting for in the general election, and some that I might even try to casually encourage others to support.

    That’s about as “passionate” as I get about supporting a particular candidate. One of those people could be Jesus in disguise, and I’m pretty sure I still wouldn’t be excited or passionate about the candidate at this point.

  • WebMonk

    Passionate support? I haven’t had any of that for any candidates since … ever. And to make my malaise even worse, I don’t give a rip about what the candidates say or do during the primaries. Everyone is talking in a warped echo chamber, and so all sorts of positions will be claimed that may or may not reflect the candidate realities.

    I could see several of the candidates that I could feel good voting for in the general election, and some that I might even try to casually encourage others to support.

    That’s about as “passionate” as I get about supporting a particular candidate. One of those people could be Jesus in disguise, and I’m pretty sure I still wouldn’t be excited or passionate about the candidate at this point.

  • WebMonk

    I’m also curious about why Ron Paul was disqualified as one of the possibilities for which someone could be excited. Why single out Ron Paul? Why not also exclude Bachman or Santorum? They probably have about an equal chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

    For me, Ron Paul is probably the person for whom I am the closest to being “enthusiastic”. If he were to become the Republican nominee, I would probably even get to the point of genuinely being enthusiastic. (I don’t give him a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning, but I would be a supporter.)

    Why the bias against Ron Paul, Dr. Veith?

  • WebMonk

    I’m also curious about why Ron Paul was disqualified as one of the possibilities for which someone could be excited. Why single out Ron Paul? Why not also exclude Bachman or Santorum? They probably have about an equal chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

    For me, Ron Paul is probably the person for whom I am the closest to being “enthusiastic”. If he were to become the Republican nominee, I would probably even get to the point of genuinely being enthusiastic. (I don’t give him a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning, but I would be a supporter.)

    Why the bias against Ron Paul, Dr. Veith?

  • LAJ

    Perhaps Herman Cain if he continues to do well in the debates.

  • LAJ

    Perhaps Herman Cain if he continues to do well in the debates.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m with WebMonk in general. Anyway, I don’t think this election will require passion from the electorate in any case. Turnout will be lower than in 2008. Hardcore Democrats are largely disgusted with Obama. Republicans are largely disgusted with their current “choices.” It won’t be an exciting election; we’ve already heard everything that will or could be said. I, for one, don’t care who wins and, per usual, may not even vote, or if I do, will be writing in someone I could actually support. It’s not my fault that the modern system of mass democracy provides such lousy “options.”

    SAL@3: Huh? What are you talking about? Abundant empirical evidence demonstrates that America is a largely “purple” nation, and recent events have shown that partisan elections are far more competitive than they were in the mid-twentieth century (empirical studies have been carried out to this effect). Upon what grounds do you claim that 2012 will be the “last” competitive election? What do demographics have to do with that absurd prediction? And just what do you think will happen? A one-party dictatorship? Under whom? Why?

    Don’t get me wrong: I agree that considering the Republicans and Democrats to be two distinct options to be naive at best, and two choices is far too few. But I don’t expect the current system to be going anywhere anytime soon. God help us.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m with WebMonk in general. Anyway, I don’t think this election will require passion from the electorate in any case. Turnout will be lower than in 2008. Hardcore Democrats are largely disgusted with Obama. Republicans are largely disgusted with their current “choices.” It won’t be an exciting election; we’ve already heard everything that will or could be said. I, for one, don’t care who wins and, per usual, may not even vote, or if I do, will be writing in someone I could actually support. It’s not my fault that the modern system of mass democracy provides such lousy “options.”

    SAL@3: Huh? What are you talking about? Abundant empirical evidence demonstrates that America is a largely “purple” nation, and recent events have shown that partisan elections are far more competitive than they were in the mid-twentieth century (empirical studies have been carried out to this effect). Upon what grounds do you claim that 2012 will be the “last” competitive election? What do demographics have to do with that absurd prediction? And just what do you think will happen? A one-party dictatorship? Under whom? Why?

    Don’t get me wrong: I agree that considering the Republicans and Democrats to be two distinct options to be naive at best, and two choices is far too few. But I don’t expect the current system to be going anywhere anytime soon. God help us.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and the reason Ron Paul is being discounted by both progressives and self-described “conservatives” is because the Republican party is not, in fact, conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and the reason Ron Paul is being discounted by both progressives and self-described “conservatives” is because the Republican party is not, in fact, conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.

  • Jerry

    A lot of wisdom in the comments. The reason the Republican candidates look so pathetic is the American people need real hope and change, and not just in their political leaders. The last time the US saw conditions similar to this, there was a run-up in the 1920′s followed by a depression that was ended only by a world war. However, the people that emerged from the war were shaped by the conditions into America’s greatest generation, and led to probably one of the greatest gains for civilization in the history of man. One election won’t change what will take a generation.

  • Jerry

    A lot of wisdom in the comments. The reason the Republican candidates look so pathetic is the American people need real hope and change, and not just in their political leaders. The last time the US saw conditions similar to this, there was a run-up in the 1920′s followed by a depression that was ended only by a world war. However, the people that emerged from the war were shaped by the conditions into America’s greatest generation, and led to probably one of the greatest gains for civilization in the history of man. One election won’t change what will take a generation.

  • kerner

    Jerry:

    America’s “Greatest Generation” used the power they acquired in their middle age to give us Great Society socialism, “Playboy” sexual ethics, and the Vietnam War. Some kinds of greatness we could do without.

    I was just getting enthused about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, when he dropped out for family reasons. That seems to happen to me a lot. The candidayes I really like go nowhere. I liked Sam Brownback too, back in the day.

  • kerner

    Jerry:

    America’s “Greatest Generation” used the power they acquired in their middle age to give us Great Society socialism, “Playboy” sexual ethics, and the Vietnam War. Some kinds of greatness we could do without.

    I was just getting enthused about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, when he dropped out for family reasons. That seems to happen to me a lot. The candidayes I really like go nowhere. I liked Sam Brownback too, back in the day.

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner: It is not coincidental that the candidates you like have a tendency to drop out before they begin. Only pathological souls campaign seriously for national office.

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner: It is not coincidental that the candidates you like have a tendency to drop out before they begin. Only pathological souls campaign seriously for national office.

  • http://jdueck.net Joel D

    From where I sit, as someone with both marketing and management responsibilities at an engineering firm that serves medium- to large-size businesses, the problems businesses face right now has nothing to do with government being in the way. The problem is extremely soft demand for goods and services.

    One big way the government can help is by providing some certainty and stability, and at least a temporary show of unity. I don’t see Republicans having that as a big priority right now.

    There really isn’t much room for the government to improve demand by cutting taxes at this point. If they cut taxes without doing anything to reduce the deficit, that is only going to contribute to uncertainty about the country’s credit and about the future economy in general. Businesses will simply avoid hiring, continue to take advantage of smaller payrolls and lower taxes to hoard cash and try to keep the same level of productivity with fewer people. I see this happening in our company and all over the place.

  • http://jdueck.net Joel D

    From where I sit, as someone with both marketing and management responsibilities at an engineering firm that serves medium- to large-size businesses, the problems businesses face right now has nothing to do with government being in the way. The problem is extremely soft demand for goods and services.

    One big way the government can help is by providing some certainty and stability, and at least a temporary show of unity. I don’t see Republicans having that as a big priority right now.

    There really isn’t much room for the government to improve demand by cutting taxes at this point. If they cut taxes without doing anything to reduce the deficit, that is only going to contribute to uncertainty about the country’s credit and about the future economy in general. Businesses will simply avoid hiring, continue to take advantage of smaller payrolls and lower taxes to hoard cash and try to keep the same level of productivity with fewer people. I see this happening in our company and all over the place.

  • DonS

    Dr. Veith: The Republicans will not lose their majority in the House. They will roughly maintain their current numerical advantage, or even slightly improve it, because of redistricting. Look at the recent election in NY-9 (Weiner’s district), which elected a Republican despite a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage, for evidence that there is no great appetite for Democratic legislative control.

    Moreover, it is a near certainty that the Republicans will gain control of the Senate.

    As for the presidency, we are one cycle away (two if a Republican wins this time) from having a new young crop of Republicans ready to take their shot at the office, such as Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and a host of others. There are some good young leaders in governor’s houses and the House currently who just need more seasoning and their kids to get older. As Cincinnatus says, running for the presidency isn’t an easy thing for family men (or women), which is why our candidates in both parties tend to be seriously flawed.

    I wouldn’t have an issue with voting for any of the current candidates in the general election — they are all as or more qualified than the current occupant of the White House. So things aren’t that bad. It is always like this for the party out of power — during the primary season candidates beat up on each other and so all look diminished, while the president sits and waits for his opponent to emerge. During the general election, the troops rally around the chosen candidate, the message becomes clearer, and things clarify. I do wish, however, that Republicans would learn that they elevate themselves by focusing on the ultimate Democratic opponent, and honing their general election message during the primaries, than by diminishing their primary opponents. As a primary voter, I want to hear how they plan to defeat the Democrats — what their message is. I do not want to hear, from them, what is wrong with the other candidates.

  • DonS

    Dr. Veith: The Republicans will not lose their majority in the House. They will roughly maintain their current numerical advantage, or even slightly improve it, because of redistricting. Look at the recent election in NY-9 (Weiner’s district), which elected a Republican despite a 3-1 Democratic registration advantage, for evidence that there is no great appetite for Democratic legislative control.

    Moreover, it is a near certainty that the Republicans will gain control of the Senate.

    As for the presidency, we are one cycle away (two if a Republican wins this time) from having a new young crop of Republicans ready to take their shot at the office, such as Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and a host of others. There are some good young leaders in governor’s houses and the House currently who just need more seasoning and their kids to get older. As Cincinnatus says, running for the presidency isn’t an easy thing for family men (or women), which is why our candidates in both parties tend to be seriously flawed.

    I wouldn’t have an issue with voting for any of the current candidates in the general election — they are all as or more qualified than the current occupant of the White House. So things aren’t that bad. It is always like this for the party out of power — during the primary season candidates beat up on each other and so all look diminished, while the president sits and waits for his opponent to emerge. During the general election, the troops rally around the chosen candidate, the message becomes clearer, and things clarify. I do wish, however, that Republicans would learn that they elevate themselves by focusing on the ultimate Democratic opponent, and honing their general election message during the primaries, than by diminishing their primary opponents. As a primary voter, I want to hear how they plan to defeat the Democrats — what their message is. I do not want to hear, from them, what is wrong with the other candidates.

  • Spiced Parrot

    Its important to keep in mind that the POTUS election is not a national one but is composed of 50 individual races. If you look at those numbers, particularly considering recent population shifts the DEMS have roughly a 4 vote advantage in the electoral college. No matter who the GOP nominee is its likely that several states that went Blue in 2008 will go red again (ie. FL, VA, IN, etc. etc.). Effectively that boils the race down to Ohio and Colorado. If the GOP candidate can flip any of the other traditional blue states (maybe a WI, MN, or IA) then that could make it much easier. Add on to that the general consensus that Senate candidates are polling well for the GOP will also help in the POTUS races. So, while I agree that’s its far from a slam dunk (particularly considering that the election is still a political eternity in the future) the GOP, with any candidate, is in a much more formidable position that they were in 2008.

  • Spiced Parrot

    Its important to keep in mind that the POTUS election is not a national one but is composed of 50 individual races. If you look at those numbers, particularly considering recent population shifts the DEMS have roughly a 4 vote advantage in the electoral college. No matter who the GOP nominee is its likely that several states that went Blue in 2008 will go red again (ie. FL, VA, IN, etc. etc.). Effectively that boils the race down to Ohio and Colorado. If the GOP candidate can flip any of the other traditional blue states (maybe a WI, MN, or IA) then that could make it much easier. Add on to that the general consensus that Senate candidates are polling well for the GOP will also help in the POTUS races. So, while I agree that’s its far from a slam dunk (particularly considering that the election is still a political eternity in the future) the GOP, with any candidate, is in a much more formidable position that they were in 2008.

  • Spiced Parrot

    What can turn the tide however, is pulling the “independents.” Contrary to conventional wisdom the middle votes for the most exciting candidate not necessarily the most moderate. The way you create that excitement is by having a candidate that motivates the base. POTUS understands this and is focusing his attention on his base to try and regenerate his “magic.” The GOP would be wise to nominate a candidate who can do the same – right now the only guy that I think has that capability is Cain.

  • Spiced Parrot

    What can turn the tide however, is pulling the “independents.” Contrary to conventional wisdom the middle votes for the most exciting candidate not necessarily the most moderate. The way you create that excitement is by having a candidate that motivates the base. POTUS understands this and is focusing his attention on his base to try and regenerate his “magic.” The GOP would be wise to nominate a candidate who can do the same – right now the only guy that I think has that capability is Cain.

  • RGD

    Dr. Veith, I generally refrain from commenting on blogs, especially when the subject is politics or religion, but I find your position very hard to understand. In light of a number of polls that show again and again that any generic Republican candidate could beat Obama in the general election today, and that satisfaction with Congress is lower than it’s been in more than a generation – I don’t understand your reasoning. Of course, I’m from Texas, and I think Perry has done a pretty good job overall. And I live pretty far removed from the Ivory Tower, so maybe it’s just that I can’t quite grasp the thinking that predominates there. Still, I’ve read a number of your books, which are excellent, and I have great respect for you as a thinker. So I’m sure there must be some flaw in my own reasoning. You seem to be saying that candidates can only be elected on the basis of likeability (and perhaps empty campaign promises) but I think the current situation will make this election very much a different event. Maybe there’s a Republican waiting on the sidelines for Romney and Perry to bludgeon each other to death and step into the breach. Time will tell, of course. Thanks for listening.

  • RGD

    Dr. Veith, I generally refrain from commenting on blogs, especially when the subject is politics or religion, but I find your position very hard to understand. In light of a number of polls that show again and again that any generic Republican candidate could beat Obama in the general election today, and that satisfaction with Congress is lower than it’s been in more than a generation – I don’t understand your reasoning. Of course, I’m from Texas, and I think Perry has done a pretty good job overall. And I live pretty far removed from the Ivory Tower, so maybe it’s just that I can’t quite grasp the thinking that predominates there. Still, I’ve read a number of your books, which are excellent, and I have great respect for you as a thinker. So I’m sure there must be some flaw in my own reasoning. You seem to be saying that candidates can only be elected on the basis of likeability (and perhaps empty campaign promises) but I think the current situation will make this election very much a different event. Maybe there’s a Republican waiting on the sidelines for Romney and Perry to bludgeon each other to death and step into the breach. Time will tell, of course. Thanks for listening.

  • Martin J.

    Cincy: “the reason Ron Paul is being discounted by both progressives and self-described ‘conservatives’” is because he is unelectable and the large majority of his positions are counter-productive to solving government problems. Yes, he stirs the pot and gets people talking about issues in a way that they probably not be faced with if he didn’t exist in the race. But generally, Ron Paul comes across as having zero leadership/executive ability and fringe positions for someone who is serving in a federal government role.

  • Martin J.

    Cincy: “the reason Ron Paul is being discounted by both progressives and self-described ‘conservatives’” is because he is unelectable and the large majority of his positions are counter-productive to solving government problems. Yes, he stirs the pot and gets people talking about issues in a way that they probably not be faced with if he didn’t exist in the race. But generally, Ron Paul comes across as having zero leadership/executive ability and fringe positions for someone who is serving in a federal government role.

  • Cincinnatus

    Martin J.:

    Granted, Ron Paul has certain “fringe” positions. For instance, while I agree that most currently prohibited drugs should be legalized, this isn’t popular with the electorate. Granted also that he lacks executive experience (since when, however, was serving in the House and chairing various committees not leadership experience?). Granted, furthermore, that he isn’t running seriously: he doesn’t expect to win, and only his most crazed supporters believe he is. He’s running to ensure that currently underrepresented views–views which used to be part and parcel of the Republican party specifically and the American experience generally–receive a hearing in this consolidated epoch. I also disagree with him on questions of free trade. I’m not a “Paultard” who thinks every word he speaks is straight from the lips of the American God.

    But I don’t see how his most prominent views are “fringe” and facially “counter-productive.” How? What is your definition of productive? Auditing the Fed? A great idea. Minimizing our military commitments? An even better idea. Reducing entitlement spending? Better still. Ensuring a robust federalism? Best of all. These are “ideas” that used to be taken for granted, back when centralization and imperial adventures were the preserve of progressive fringe radicals. Apparently not anymore.

    Ron Paul will never win. But that fact says more about the state of our electorate, media, and political machine than it does about Paul himself. In fact, someone who has little chance of election is probably worth consideration these days. Better than the pack of frauds, swindlers, thieves, and criminals that fill both parties “successfully.”

  • Cincinnatus

    Martin J.:

    Granted, Ron Paul has certain “fringe” positions. For instance, while I agree that most currently prohibited drugs should be legalized, this isn’t popular with the electorate. Granted also that he lacks executive experience (since when, however, was serving in the House and chairing various committees not leadership experience?). Granted, furthermore, that he isn’t running seriously: he doesn’t expect to win, and only his most crazed supporters believe he is. He’s running to ensure that currently underrepresented views–views which used to be part and parcel of the Republican party specifically and the American experience generally–receive a hearing in this consolidated epoch. I also disagree with him on questions of free trade. I’m not a “Paultard” who thinks every word he speaks is straight from the lips of the American God.

    But I don’t see how his most prominent views are “fringe” and facially “counter-productive.” How? What is your definition of productive? Auditing the Fed? A great idea. Minimizing our military commitments? An even better idea. Reducing entitlement spending? Better still. Ensuring a robust federalism? Best of all. These are “ideas” that used to be taken for granted, back when centralization and imperial adventures were the preserve of progressive fringe radicals. Apparently not anymore.

    Ron Paul will never win. But that fact says more about the state of our electorate, media, and political machine than it does about Paul himself. In fact, someone who has little chance of election is probably worth consideration these days. Better than the pack of frauds, swindlers, thieves, and criminals that fill both parties “successfully.”

  • Martin J.

    No. I didn’t say he lacks executive experience. I said he has zero ability. He sounds like he should be doing voice overs for lollipop commercials.

    Amen to this: “He’s running to ensure that currently underrepresented views–views which used to be part and parcel of the Republican party specifically and the American experience generally–receive a hearing in this consolidated epoch” — That’s a very good thing!

  • Martin J.

    No. I didn’t say he lacks executive experience. I said he has zero ability. He sounds like he should be doing voice overs for lollipop commercials.

    Amen to this: “He’s running to ensure that currently underrepresented views–views which used to be part and parcel of the Republican party specifically and the American experience generally–receive a hearing in this consolidated epoch” — That’s a very good thing!

  • Martin J.

    Also, fyi, I think Paul has put a great spotlight on the problems of federal spending, on taxes, on constitutional government. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in putting America first.

    Where I disagree the most with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a huge grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect.

    Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive. That’s what I meant.

  • Martin J.

    Also, fyi, I think Paul has put a great spotlight on the problems of federal spending, on taxes, on constitutional government. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in putting America first.

    Where I disagree the most with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a huge grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect.

    Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive. That’s what I meant.

  • Cincinnatus

    Fair enough. And I think he knows this: it’s not as if Paul believes he can actually convince the criminals in Congress to compromise. They’re compromised beyond all recognition already, and their votes are in the bag. So why not cast a symbolic vote? That’s what I do every time I write in and refuse to condone the results the system as a whole has produced. I don’t actually think that my “results” will be better if I refuse to support the “lesser of two evils.”

    I disagree that he’s never able to convince anyone to side with him, though. For example, his bill to audit the fed attracted extensive bipartisan support. And, if both Republicans and Democrats would take their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling like children, they would probably find that his views on war and foreign involvement are broadly attractive. But fair enough: in general, he is not a coalition builder. I think both he and I prefer him being known as a gadfly.

    /back to your regularly scheduled programming

  • Cincinnatus

    Fair enough. And I think he knows this: it’s not as if Paul believes he can actually convince the criminals in Congress to compromise. They’re compromised beyond all recognition already, and their votes are in the bag. So why not cast a symbolic vote? That’s what I do every time I write in and refuse to condone the results the system as a whole has produced. I don’t actually think that my “results” will be better if I refuse to support the “lesser of two evils.”

    I disagree that he’s never able to convince anyone to side with him, though. For example, his bill to audit the fed attracted extensive bipartisan support. And, if both Republicans and Democrats would take their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling like children, they would probably find that his views on war and foreign involvement are broadly attractive. But fair enough: in general, he is not a coalition builder. I think both he and I prefer him being known as a gadfly.

    /back to your regularly scheduled programming

  • Grace

    I believe any of the above except for Bachman, would be far more qualified for the presidency over the current embarrassment our country endures in the Oval Office now.

    Cain is an exceptional man, I believe he has a very good chance, if not the presidency, most certainly the VP spot. Perry is also a good choice – because he is not as slick as Romney (the super Ken doll) doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  • Grace

    I believe any of the above except for Bachman, would be far more qualified for the presidency over the current embarrassment our country endures in the Oval Office now.

    Cain is an exceptional man, I believe he has a very good chance, if not the presidency, most certainly the VP spot. Perry is also a good choice – because he is not as slick as Romney (the super Ken doll) doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Webmonk @6, I am most certainly NOT discounting or disrespecting Ron Paul. I know that HE has rabid supporters. My experiment is to see if any other Republican candidate has rabid supporters. So far, according to the comments here, none have surfaced. (Again, “could vote for one of them” is not the kind of enthusiastic following that I am looking for.)

    I am not despairing. I agree with DonS that the NEXT generation of young Republican leaders shows great promise (Jindal, Ryan, etc.). (I wonder if we could hurry them along. I could see myself supporting with some enthusiasm Bobby Jindal.)

    And RGD, I certainly don’t want to disillusion you! I try to write what I think is true, even in cases like this one when what I think will happen goes against my desires. Yes, Obama can be defeated by any generic Republican candidate. But once you name them, each and every one, according to current polls, gets beaten, despite Obama’s low approval ratings!

    Let’s find a generic candidate! Someone without a name or personality or record. If Republicans could do that, they could indeed win. But we run up against the scandal of particularity.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Webmonk @6, I am most certainly NOT discounting or disrespecting Ron Paul. I know that HE has rabid supporters. My experiment is to see if any other Republican candidate has rabid supporters. So far, according to the comments here, none have surfaced. (Again, “could vote for one of them” is not the kind of enthusiastic following that I am looking for.)

    I am not despairing. I agree with DonS that the NEXT generation of young Republican leaders shows great promise (Jindal, Ryan, etc.). (I wonder if we could hurry them along. I could see myself supporting with some enthusiasm Bobby Jindal.)

    And RGD, I certainly don’t want to disillusion you! I try to write what I think is true, even in cases like this one when what I think will happen goes against my desires. Yes, Obama can be defeated by any generic Republican candidate. But once you name them, each and every one, according to current polls, gets beaten, despite Obama’s low approval ratings!

    Let’s find a generic candidate! Someone without a name or personality or record. If Republicans could do that, they could indeed win. But we run up against the scandal of particularity.

  • Helen K.

    following….

  • Helen K.

    following….

  • jonathan

    @23 Grace, I’ll bite.
    What’s the matter with Bachmann?

  • jonathan

    @23 Grace, I’ll bite.
    What’s the matter with Bachmann?

  • Drew Nelson

    Honestly, I tend to always be quite apathetic when election time comes around. I know this shouldn’t be the case, but I do tend to agree with and have in assurance in knowing that God is, was, and always will be Lord. Politics are politics and I leave it to the politicians.

    I was going to say that I’m a rabid supporter of God… but he isn’t a Republican is he? :P

    Guess that’s it for me then.

  • Drew Nelson

    Honestly, I tend to always be quite apathetic when election time comes around. I know this shouldn’t be the case, but I do tend to agree with and have in assurance in knowing that God is, was, and always will be Lord. Politics are politics and I leave it to the politicians.

    I was going to say that I’m a rabid supporter of God… but he isn’t a Republican is he? :P

    Guess that’s it for me then.

  • SAL

    #8 Most Demographic groups that are growing tend to vote for liberal candidates. Single women, minorities, college graduates…

    Most non-liberals are part of shrinking demographic groups:
    Married Women, Working Class Non-Minorities, and Non-Minorities in general.

    I don’t really see Democrats have any competition for national elections once these demographic realities are reflected in the electorate.

  • SAL

    #8 Most Demographic groups that are growing tend to vote for liberal candidates. Single women, minorities, college graduates…

    Most non-liberals are part of shrinking demographic groups:
    Married Women, Working Class Non-Minorities, and Non-Minorities in general.

    I don’t really see Democrats have any competition for national elections once these demographic realities are reflected in the electorate.

  • Joe

    I think there are fairly rabid Romney supports. I am not one but I work with several who are.

  • Joe

    I think there are fairly rabid Romney supports. I am not one but I work with several who are.

  • Grace

    jonathan @ 26

    I believe strongly, that men are much better at leading a nation than a woman. Thatcher was a rare exception.

  • Grace

    jonathan @ 26

    I believe strongly, that men are much better at leading a nation than a woman. Thatcher was a rare exception.

  • DonS

    To follow on to what Joe said @ 29, I read a news article today from one of the wire services reporting that the financial services industry has largely shifted its political support to Romney from Obama.

  • DonS

    To follow on to what Joe said @ 29, I read a news article today from one of the wire services reporting that the financial services industry has largely shifted its political support to Romney from Obama.

  • kerner

    SAL@28:

    Which only goes to show why conservatives need to be marketing themselves and recruiting among some of those groups.

    College graduates tend to get more conservative as they age. Their liberalism tends to stem from the indoctrination they are subjected to by the educational establishment (which conservatives need to break up, and/or marginalize).

    43% of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which represented a growing trend among Hispanics until numerous “conservatives” decided to piss in their nachos by deciding a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric was a good campaign strategy for 2006. We could still win a lot of them back if we would simply come out in favor of letting those Hispanics who want to work hard and pay taxes stay here and do that.

    As far as I know, the only Asian Governors in the US are two conservative Republicans (Jindal LA and Hailey SC), so that minority may be fruitful for conservatives.

    I think the desire of women to marry is inherently strong enough for that pendulum to swing back eventually.

    So there’s hope, I think.

  • kerner

    SAL@28:

    Which only goes to show why conservatives need to be marketing themselves and recruiting among some of those groups.

    College graduates tend to get more conservative as they age. Their liberalism tends to stem from the indoctrination they are subjected to by the educational establishment (which conservatives need to break up, and/or marginalize).

    43% of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush in 2004, which represented a growing trend among Hispanics until numerous “conservatives” decided to piss in their nachos by deciding a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric was a good campaign strategy for 2006. We could still win a lot of them back if we would simply come out in favor of letting those Hispanics who want to work hard and pay taxes stay here and do that.

    As far as I know, the only Asian Governors in the US are two conservative Republicans (Jindal LA and Hailey SC), so that minority may be fruitful for conservatives.

    I think the desire of women to marry is inherently strong enough for that pendulum to swing back eventually.

    So there’s hope, I think.

  • jonathan

    @30 Grace, thanks.
    So would you vote for a woman if the GOP nominated one to run against Obama? Unlikely, I know, but what if the nominee were Palin or Bachmann?

  • jonathan

    @30 Grace, thanks.
    So would you vote for a woman if the GOP nominated one to run against Obama? Unlikely, I know, but what if the nominee were Palin or Bachmann?

  • DonS

    Sal @ 28: We tend to think of demographic groups as being static, but they’re not. Many of the poor today will be middle class tomorrow — some middle class will be the wealthy, some middle class will be the poor. People move in and out of these groups all of the time. As Kerner said, college graduates tend to get more conservative as they get older, realize how expensive it is to support a family, and grow weary of the excessive amounts government extract from their hard earned pay, much of which go to waste or favored constituencies such as public employee unions. Many also grow resentful of the nanny-ism of modern government, and want to be left alone to raise their families as they deem best. Even racial demographic groups are illusory — most Americans at this point in time comprise a hodge-podge of multiple ethnicities and races. Single women will marry, those in a racial minority often outgrow the “groupthink” that is imposed on them by society as they grow in their own careers and reside here longer.

    When conservatives clearly and engagingly offer the message of individual liberty, lower taxes and government expenditures, and economic growth which they inherently possess, they can and do cut through the establishment bias toward liberal ideology and win converts among these groups. It has happened many times in the past. It’s the message, not the demographics, which win or lose the day.

  • DonS

    Sal @ 28: We tend to think of demographic groups as being static, but they’re not. Many of the poor today will be middle class tomorrow — some middle class will be the wealthy, some middle class will be the poor. People move in and out of these groups all of the time. As Kerner said, college graduates tend to get more conservative as they get older, realize how expensive it is to support a family, and grow weary of the excessive amounts government extract from their hard earned pay, much of which go to waste or favored constituencies such as public employee unions. Many also grow resentful of the nanny-ism of modern government, and want to be left alone to raise their families as they deem best. Even racial demographic groups are illusory — most Americans at this point in time comprise a hodge-podge of multiple ethnicities and races. Single women will marry, those in a racial minority often outgrow the “groupthink” that is imposed on them by society as they grow in their own careers and reside here longer.

    When conservatives clearly and engagingly offer the message of individual liberty, lower taxes and government expenditures, and economic growth which they inherently possess, they can and do cut through the establishment bias toward liberal ideology and win converts among these groups. It has happened many times in the past. It’s the message, not the demographics, which win or lose the day.

  • Renee Busha

    I’ve donated to the Herman Cain campaign. That isn’t something I generally do. I’m not rabid, but I am following him. I think his campaign is starting to get attention. I hear some wealthy Republicans are starting to raise funds for him. I don’t want someone like Perry or Romkey. I don’t want someone who is interested in compromising with the left. That said, I’d vote for almost any Republican running against Obama. I have a lot of liberal friends and they are talking about staying home in 2012 and some have even started talking about voting Republican. Obama is losing his base…fast. Cheer up. Liberals seldom stay in office very long, precisely because of what their policies do to the ordinary man’s bank account.

  • Renee Busha

    I’ve donated to the Herman Cain campaign. That isn’t something I generally do. I’m not rabid, but I am following him. I think his campaign is starting to get attention. I hear some wealthy Republicans are starting to raise funds for him. I don’t want someone like Perry or Romkey. I don’t want someone who is interested in compromising with the left. That said, I’d vote for almost any Republican running against Obama. I have a lot of liberal friends and they are talking about staying home in 2012 and some have even started talking about voting Republican. Obama is losing his base…fast. Cheer up. Liberals seldom stay in office very long, precisely because of what their policies do to the ordinary man’s bank account.

  • Carl Vehse

    Yeah, but shouldn’t we discussing the possible outcome of the 2016 election. After all, it’s only a half-decade away.

  • Carl Vehse

    Yeah, but shouldn’t we discussing the possible outcome of the 2016 election. After all, it’s only a half-decade away.

  • Grace

    jonathan @ 33

    Palin or Backmann are both hypothetical. The cutsey presence they both exhibit, only makes it worse. A waste of time.

  • Grace

    jonathan @ 33

    Palin or Backmann are both hypothetical. The cutsey presence they both exhibit, only makes it worse. A waste of time.

  • mikeb

    Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    I don’t see how Obama wins reelection. I hear the argument–but he’d have to pull a Harry Truman (‘Dewey Defeats Truman’) kind of comeback. Almost every election has broken against him since November 2008. The Blame Bush shtick stopped playing well a long time ago and I doubt people can be fooled into believing that another ‘Do Nothing Congress’ is to blame. Especially if they knew that it’s the Democrat Senate that is stalling the President’s jobs bill.

    At this point its definitely the Republicans’ race to lose, and they have plenty of experience snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But I still don’t see a path for Obama’s reelection.

  • mikeb

    Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    I don’t see how Obama wins reelection. I hear the argument–but he’d have to pull a Harry Truman (‘Dewey Defeats Truman’) kind of comeback. Almost every election has broken against him since November 2008. The Blame Bush shtick stopped playing well a long time ago and I doubt people can be fooled into believing that another ‘Do Nothing Congress’ is to blame. Especially if they knew that it’s the Democrat Senate that is stalling the President’s jobs bill.

    At this point its definitely the Republicans’ race to lose, and they have plenty of experience snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But I still don’t see a path for Obama’s reelection.

  • JH

    LOL. “not counting Ron Paul”

  • JH

    LOL. “not counting Ron Paul”

  • Curtis

    I love Paul Ryan. A lot. Very enthusiastic about him. Unfortunately, he’s not running. At this point, I’ll take Cain. Smart guy with good executive experience especially some in turning around a company (not the same as the gov’t but I’m definitely not voting Romney).

    On a related note, I really don’t understand this idea (Keynesian economics) that government needs to do more. Really? How much more? $5 trillion in debt in 3 years not enough (and I haven’t even gotten to Europe yet)? Especially when empirical evidence points in the other direction:

    http://american.com/archive/2011/july/yes-you-really-can-cut-your-way-to-prosperity

    And that polling indicates workers want less regulation:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-workers-want-less-regulation_556014.html

    Which is good considering that the cost of regulations in 2008 were as high as $1.75 trillion:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/regulation-nation_593656.html

    I’m not a religiously devoted Reagan guy mostly because I was only 2 when he left office and don’t remember him. However, his policies seem to have a much better effect on a recessed economy than Mr. Obama’s policies thus far.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-darkness-america_592095.html

  • Curtis

    I love Paul Ryan. A lot. Very enthusiastic about him. Unfortunately, he’s not running. At this point, I’ll take Cain. Smart guy with good executive experience especially some in turning around a company (not the same as the gov’t but I’m definitely not voting Romney).

    On a related note, I really don’t understand this idea (Keynesian economics) that government needs to do more. Really? How much more? $5 trillion in debt in 3 years not enough (and I haven’t even gotten to Europe yet)? Especially when empirical evidence points in the other direction:

    http://american.com/archive/2011/july/yes-you-really-can-cut-your-way-to-prosperity

    And that polling indicates workers want less regulation:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-workers-want-less-regulation_556014.html

    Which is good considering that the cost of regulations in 2008 were as high as $1.75 trillion:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/regulation-nation_593656.html

    I’m not a religiously devoted Reagan guy mostly because I was only 2 when he left office and don’t remember him. However, his policies seem to have a much better effect on a recessed economy than Mr. Obama’s policies thus far.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-darkness-america_592095.html

  • E-Raj

    I predict that when (not if) Obamacare is declared unconstitutional next year by the Supreme Court, it will effectively end any chance of Obama being reelected, since his biggest “achievement” will be nullified. Fair or not, the economy is now his mess, not Bush’s. I just can’t see the majority voting for four more years of “stimulus” spending that doesn’t work. What else does he have to offer us? If he’s holding something back, he’d better tell us now, because there are a lot of people expecting more than a repackaged Stimulus II. If Obama claims he can’t get his ideas through Congress, then he’s just a lame duck. He certainly can’t run on his record, so all he can do now is demonize any GOP candidate. I don’t think the majority will buy that.

  • E-Raj

    I predict that when (not if) Obamacare is declared unconstitutional next year by the Supreme Court, it will effectively end any chance of Obama being reelected, since his biggest “achievement” will be nullified. Fair or not, the economy is now his mess, not Bush’s. I just can’t see the majority voting for four more years of “stimulus” spending that doesn’t work. What else does he have to offer us? If he’s holding something back, he’d better tell us now, because there are a lot of people expecting more than a repackaged Stimulus II. If Obama claims he can’t get his ideas through Congress, then he’s just a lame duck. He certainly can’t run on his record, so all he can do now is demonize any GOP candidate. I don’t think the majority will buy that.

  • molloaggie

    I think Ronmey must have some great backers since he’s lasted this long to show his face in a second election. I don’t trust him and voters didn’t like him last election cycle but he might win on name recognition this cycle. He’s old and familiar to people, even if they don’t know anything about him. I know ppl who’ve fled Mass. and their nasty healthcare laws.

    Obama is in election mode now and that’s what Stimulus II is all about. He didn’t write it with democratic senators to get it passed, he wrote it to show he’s base supports his true roots. This whole “it’s not fair” whine game he’s playing is making his base estatic. He pretty much ended his presidency as of this point concerning economics because he can’t go back and compromise on anything now.

    Personally, I would love Perry to be President. With this last budget that he passed here in Texas, he showed everybody that there’s no sacred cow, cuts across the board, even for education.

  • molloaggie

    I think Ronmey must have some great backers since he’s lasted this long to show his face in a second election. I don’t trust him and voters didn’t like him last election cycle but he might win on name recognition this cycle. He’s old and familiar to people, even if they don’t know anything about him. I know ppl who’ve fled Mass. and their nasty healthcare laws.

    Obama is in election mode now and that’s what Stimulus II is all about. He didn’t write it with democratic senators to get it passed, he wrote it to show he’s base supports his true roots. This whole “it’s not fair” whine game he’s playing is making his base estatic. He pretty much ended his presidency as of this point concerning economics because he can’t go back and compromise on anything now.

    Personally, I would love Perry to be President. With this last budget that he passed here in Texas, he showed everybody that there’s no sacred cow, cuts across the board, even for education.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    Bachmann-Cain at this point-

    agree w/ Paul on many issues that line up w/ the Constitution (original intent) but- his stand that Anwar al Awlaki ( the US terrorist trainer -Ft Hood- 9-11 ) should not have been killed but -rather -tried in US court system – rendered him ‘scratched’ from my list–
    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    Bachmann-Cain at this point-

    agree w/ Paul on many issues that line up w/ the Constitution (original intent) but- his stand that Anwar al Awlaki ( the US terrorist trainer -Ft Hood- 9-11 ) should not have been killed but -rather -tried in US court system – rendered him ‘scratched’ from my list–
    Carol-CS

  • Pingback: Pension Release

  • Pingback: Pension Release

  • Cincinnatus

    Carol-CS: That’s an interesting and, in my opinion, repugnant stance on the issue. Anwar was a United States citizen. Neither President nor the Congress are empowered by the Constitution to assassinate United States citizens–not even foreign citizens! Even traitors must be tried in a court of law, regardless of the threat they pose.

    It’s one thing to point a gun at the President and be shot in defense/response; it’s another thing altogether to be put on a list for extermination. Never acceptable under American law. Do you really want a precedent set for the federal government to “take out,” say, extreme right-wingers in Texas to save the expense of FBI probes and silly trials-by-jury?

  • Cincinnatus

    Carol-CS: That’s an interesting and, in my opinion, repugnant stance on the issue. Anwar was a United States citizen. Neither President nor the Congress are empowered by the Constitution to assassinate United States citizens–not even foreign citizens! Even traitors must be tried in a court of law, regardless of the threat they pose.

    It’s one thing to point a gun at the President and be shot in defense/response; it’s another thing altogether to be put on a list for extermination. Never acceptable under American law. Do you really want a precedent set for the federal government to “take out,” say, extreme right-wingers in Texas to save the expense of FBI probes and silly trials-by-jury?

  • helen

    Personally, I would love Perry to be President. With this last budget that he passed here in Texas, he showed everybody that there’s no sacred cow, cuts across the board, even for education.

    He didn’t offer to move to a cheaper rent house!
    His present digs, at $10,ooo per month plus utilities
    cost the state of Texas 12 times more than he thinks a four year college degree should cost.

    Something is wrong with that reasoning!

  • helen

    Personally, I would love Perry to be President. With this last budget that he passed here in Texas, he showed everybody that there’s no sacred cow, cuts across the board, even for education.

    He didn’t offer to move to a cheaper rent house!
    His present digs, at $10,ooo per month plus utilities
    cost the state of Texas 12 times more than he thinks a four year college degree should cost.

    Something is wrong with that reasoning!

  • Gary in Florida

    Ah! Glad to have you aboard, Mr. Veith. I’ve been saying this for several months now. All right-wingers are making the same mistake Hilary made back in early 2008, and that’s way underestimating what it takes to beat him–and of course now he has the added advantage of being the incumbent.

    Frankly, there’s not one Republican candidate I’d vote for with the possible exception of Mitt. Republicans are still in the wilderness.

  • Gary in Florida

    Ah! Glad to have you aboard, Mr. Veith. I’ve been saying this for several months now. All right-wingers are making the same mistake Hilary made back in early 2008, and that’s way underestimating what it takes to beat him–and of course now he has the added advantage of being the incumbent.

    Frankly, there’s not one Republican candidate I’d vote for with the possible exception of Mitt. Republicans are still in the wilderness.

  • http://fivepintlutheran.blogspot.com/ David Cochrane

    Yes my calvinist brother. God is on the throne however, we should also hold onto the steering wheel a little bit too when driving. :P

  • http://fivepintlutheran.blogspot.com/ David Cochrane

    Yes my calvinist brother. God is on the throne however, we should also hold onto the steering wheel a little bit too when driving. :P

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #34 It typically takes generations for demographic minorities to switch from bloc-voting to voting as individuals. So that’s not happening anytime soon.

    Single women aren’t getting married. Marriage is a declining institution. As marriage declines women/children treat the Federal Government as their provider/father etc.

    I do think rates of college graduation are likely to drop in the next few years (as the bubble in the academic market bursts).

    However that hardly helps as only non-minority members of the working class vote Republican.

    I think Republicans in 2016/2020 will be equivalent to Whigs in 1856/1860.

    We’ve had one-party periods before and I expect a period like that in the near future.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #34 It typically takes generations for demographic minorities to switch from bloc-voting to voting as individuals. So that’s not happening anytime soon.

    Single women aren’t getting married. Marriage is a declining institution. As marriage declines women/children treat the Federal Government as their provider/father etc.

    I do think rates of college graduation are likely to drop in the next few years (as the bubble in the academic market bursts).

    However that hardly helps as only non-minority members of the working class vote Republican.

    I think Republicans in 2016/2020 will be equivalent to Whigs in 1856/1860.

    We’ve had one-party periods before and I expect a period like that in the near future.

  • Tom Hering

    “Something is wrong with that [Perry's] reasoning!” – helen @ 44.

    How about this reasoning:

    http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Perry-open-to-sending-US-troops-to-Mexico-2198134.php

    Four wars at once (including Pakistan) isn’t enough. We need a fifth. Because the Pentagon has five sides. Or something.

  • Tom Hering

    “Something is wrong with that [Perry's] reasoning!” – helen @ 44.

    How about this reasoning:

    http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Perry-open-to-sending-US-troops-to-Mexico-2198134.php

    Four wars at once (including Pakistan) isn’t enough. We need a fifth. Because the Pentagon has five sides. Or something.

  • kerner

    “I think Republicans in 2016/2020 will be equivalent to Whigs in 1856/1860″

    SAL:

    Only if conservatives continue to think inside the box of “what is” instead of thinking of what could be.

    Even then, I don’t see it. I have never in my lifetime seen Wiscosnin under one party Republican rule, and I never expected to see it. And yet, last November I woke up one morning in a red state. All at once a conservative agenda is becoming state law.

    People have been telling me that conservatism is without a chance since I was a kid when Goldwater lost to LBJ. Since then, I have seen the Reagan Revolution, the collapse of international Communism, the Republicans take over the House of Reprtesentatives (twice), proposition 8 pass in California, and many other unexpected conservative victories. You can’t lose heart, amigo.

  • kerner

    “I think Republicans in 2016/2020 will be equivalent to Whigs in 1856/1860″

    SAL:

    Only if conservatives continue to think inside the box of “what is” instead of thinking of what could be.

    Even then, I don’t see it. I have never in my lifetime seen Wiscosnin under one party Republican rule, and I never expected to see it. And yet, last November I woke up one morning in a red state. All at once a conservative agenda is becoming state law.

    People have been telling me that conservatism is without a chance since I was a kid when Goldwater lost to LBJ. Since then, I have seen the Reagan Revolution, the collapse of international Communism, the Republicans take over the House of Reprtesentatives (twice), proposition 8 pass in California, and many other unexpected conservative victories. You can’t lose heart, amigo.

  • Dust

    “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

    That is the simplest way to explain why Obama will lose, in my humble opinion :)

  • Dust

    “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

    That is the simplest way to explain why Obama will lose, in my humble opinion :)

  • Cincinnatus

    Dust@50:

    That didn’t work in Clinton’s case, who had a fairly unpopular first term.

  • Cincinnatus

    Dust@50:

    That didn’t work in Clinton’s case, who had a fairly unpopular first term.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Actually, Tom (@48), if you listened to all of Perry’s speech, he explained his position a bit further:

    This is not a new war. We have been at war with drugs since President Nixon’s administration. And, while we have the drugs outmanned, outfunded, and outgunned, they are, to date, winning.

    This war on drugs has been far too metaphorical! That is why I, as President, will take it to the next level. In keeping with the tenets of the War on Terror, if I am elected President, I vow to use our military to the fullest extent to finish — and win — the War on Drugs. No option is off the table.

    If your country produces drugs, aids in the distribution of drugs, or even merely contains drugs, we will attack you. Let me say it again: no option is off the table. If we see a marijuana plant ten feet across the border in Mexico, we will nuke it. I have already drawn up an order to waterboard any plant of the genus Salvia, and to shoot heroin on sight.

    And don’t think you’re safe just because you only do caffeine. Caffeine is also a drug. Again, all options are on the table. I will declare Juan Valdez public enemy #1. I am not crazy. Once more, the options? They are on the table. All of them.

    Thank you, and good night.

    Also Tom, I thought you might enjoy this video. Save a pretzel for the gas jets, will you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Actually, Tom (@48), if you listened to all of Perry’s speech, he explained his position a bit further:

    This is not a new war. We have been at war with drugs since President Nixon’s administration. And, while we have the drugs outmanned, outfunded, and outgunned, they are, to date, winning.

    This war on drugs has been far too metaphorical! That is why I, as President, will take it to the next level. In keeping with the tenets of the War on Terror, if I am elected President, I vow to use our military to the fullest extent to finish — and win — the War on Drugs. No option is off the table.

    If your country produces drugs, aids in the distribution of drugs, or even merely contains drugs, we will attack you. Let me say it again: no option is off the table. If we see a marijuana plant ten feet across the border in Mexico, we will nuke it. I have already drawn up an order to waterboard any plant of the genus Salvia, and to shoot heroin on sight.

    And don’t think you’re safe just because you only do caffeine. Caffeine is also a drug. Again, all options are on the table. I will declare Juan Valdez public enemy #1. I am not crazy. Once more, the options? They are on the table. All of them.

    Thank you, and good night.

    Also Tom, I thought you might enjoy this video. Save a pretzel for the gas jets, will you?

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    I think we’re going to see a candidate Chris Christie, and ultimately a President Christie. From his waistline and his policies to his plain spoken direct manner he is the non-Obama. I could be wrong, but there are signs we should watch closely this next week or two:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhall.comstaff/2011/10/01/the_saga_continues_christie_advisor_reaches_out_to_iowa_businessman

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    I think we’re going to see a candidate Chris Christie, and ultimately a President Christie. From his waistline and his policies to his plain spoken direct manner he is the non-Obama. I could be wrong, but there are signs we should watch closely this next week or two:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhall.comstaff/2011/10/01/the_saga_continues_christie_advisor_reaches_out_to_iowa_businessman

  • JunkerGeorg

    Isn’t it silly that we all complain about the status quo we get from both parties, not to mention getting fed up with the media on both the left and right constantly trying to tell us whom we should think are the best candidates, and yet, when presented by Ron Paul–a true alternative to the status quo of both parties–we just blindly accept the media’s negative spin on “crazy old uncle Ron” and his “kooky” (constitutional) views, a spin which when you think about it simply amounts to the fact that he and his views are not the status quo–that status quo we complain about? Who is really the kooky one here?!

    I’m not saying any of us should vote for him, but to not even take the time consider his alternative viewpoints simply because he and his views do not fit the status quo “profile” the media thinks is appropriate for a candidate from either party is just a sad commentary on where we’re at as a country.

    Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls. I am a lifelong Republican and even marginalized him myself in 2008, until I stopped buying the superficial talking points and really studied some of the deeper issues he has brought to the forefront (and other GOP candidates are now parroting!) , such as “the Fed” Argument. It affects individual Americans’ FAR more intimately than even they realize until they really look at the impact is has on their family and prosperity. He is fine with legal immigration and wants to take away the incentives for illegals to come here. That hinges on his economic plan, whereby those jobs done by illegals at cheap pay can be done by legal Americans at decent wages. It has to do with sound money (a whole other delve into some research you could do). Regarding the States: he supports individual States to set their own laws. That has to do with the 10th amendment. Our 1st, 4th, and 10th are being grossly usurped by executive and judicial federal power grabbing. Most importantly, our remaining liberty, as liberty is, historically is tied to economic independen¬ce. And that has been under attack for the last 70 years. We are witnessing a global assault on sovereignty and liberty by centralized, private cartel banking on fiat currency.

    He is the one candidate, republican or democrat, that is not controlled by the big money elite, big labor unions or foreign influence. He is the only candidate that truly understands economics, the money supply and the national debt. His is the only candidate that if elected will begin bringing our troops home from the 109 countries where we have stationed them and end the war in Iraq, Afganistan, Yemen and Libya. He is the only candidate that understands the true vision of what the founding fathers wanted this country to achieve. Needless to say, I’m voting for him in the primaries because I believe in one simple fact. If Ron Paul is elected president in 2012 then this country has a chance to survive, if anyone else is elected then this country is finished.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Isn’t it silly that we all complain about the status quo we get from both parties, not to mention getting fed up with the media on both the left and right constantly trying to tell us whom we should think are the best candidates, and yet, when presented by Ron Paul–a true alternative to the status quo of both parties–we just blindly accept the media’s negative spin on “crazy old uncle Ron” and his “kooky” (constitutional) views, a spin which when you think about it simply amounts to the fact that he and his views are not the status quo–that status quo we complain about? Who is really the kooky one here?!

    I’m not saying any of us should vote for him, but to not even take the time consider his alternative viewpoints simply because he and his views do not fit the status quo “profile” the media thinks is appropriate for a candidate from either party is just a sad commentary on where we’re at as a country.

    Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls. I am a lifelong Republican and even marginalized him myself in 2008, until I stopped buying the superficial talking points and really studied some of the deeper issues he has brought to the forefront (and other GOP candidates are now parroting!) , such as “the Fed” Argument. It affects individual Americans’ FAR more intimately than even they realize until they really look at the impact is has on their family and prosperity. He is fine with legal immigration and wants to take away the incentives for illegals to come here. That hinges on his economic plan, whereby those jobs done by illegals at cheap pay can be done by legal Americans at decent wages. It has to do with sound money (a whole other delve into some research you could do). Regarding the States: he supports individual States to set their own laws. That has to do with the 10th amendment. Our 1st, 4th, and 10th are being grossly usurped by executive and judicial federal power grabbing. Most importantly, our remaining liberty, as liberty is, historically is tied to economic independen¬ce. And that has been under attack for the last 70 years. We are witnessing a global assault on sovereignty and liberty by centralized, private cartel banking on fiat currency.

    He is the one candidate, republican or democrat, that is not controlled by the big money elite, big labor unions or foreign influence. He is the only candidate that truly understands economics, the money supply and the national debt. His is the only candidate that if elected will begin bringing our troops home from the 109 countries where we have stationed them and end the war in Iraq, Afganistan, Yemen and Libya. He is the only candidate that understands the true vision of what the founding fathers wanted this country to achieve. Needless to say, I’m voting for him in the primaries because I believe in one simple fact. If Ron Paul is elected president in 2012 then this country has a chance to survive, if anyone else is elected then this country is finished.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 54

    YOU WROTE: Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls.

    REALLY? Are you sure about that?

    Ron Paul on Drugs

    Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

    A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

    Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

    A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

    How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

    A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina May 5, 2011
    http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 54

    YOU WROTE: Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls.

    REALLY? Are you sure about that?

    Ron Paul on Drugs

    Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President

    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

    A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

    Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

    A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

    How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

    A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina May 5, 2011
    http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

  • http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/ Mark

    Hi Gene,

    I’m impressed to see someone else making this prediction about Obama winning.

    I made it here: http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/2011/08/my-2012-u-s-nominationelection-predictions/

    And I’m sticking to my guns.

    It’s an unpopular prediction right now, but I think the facts point to it (and my intuition does too).

  • http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/ Mark

    Hi Gene,

    I’m impressed to see someone else making this prediction about Obama winning.

    I made it here: http://www.allthingsexpounded.com/2011/08/my-2012-u-s-nominationelection-predictions/

    And I’m sticking to my guns.

    It’s an unpopular prediction right now, but I think the facts point to it (and my intuition does too).

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    # 43-”Neither President nor the Congress are empowered by the Constitution to assassinate United States citizens–not even foreign citizens”

    Un-born – US citizens re being ‘assassinated’ – murdered- by the thousands -and w/ the use use of tax-payer $$$ (Planned Parenthood – to name one group of murderers) – I do not hear ‘out-rage’ -do you…

    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    # 43-”Neither President nor the Congress are empowered by the Constitution to assassinate United States citizens–not even foreign citizens”

    Un-born – US citizens re being ‘assassinated’ – murdered- by the thousands -and w/ the use use of tax-payer $$$ (Planned Parenthood – to name one group of murderers) – I do not hear ‘out-rage’ -do you…

    Carol-CS

  • Cincinnatus

    Carol-CS: Um…yes? I do hear outrage–from a rather significant pro-life movement.

    But seriously, what a non-sequitur. What does abortion have to do with the constitutionality of assassination?

  • Cincinnatus

    Carol-CS: Um…yes? I do hear outrage–from a rather significant pro-life movement.

    But seriously, what a non-sequitur. What does abortion have to do with the constitutionality of assassination?

  • JunkerGeorg

    Grace @55 writes:

    JunkerGeorg @ 54
    YOU WROTE: “Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls. “

    REALLY? Are you sure about that?
    —————

    Yes, I am sure he is “electable”, that is, when it comes to the presidential election. Check out the most recent Harris Poll, in which only two Republican candidates were projected to beat Obama in a head-to-head, namely, Mitt Romney at 53%-47% and Ron Paul at 51%-49%. Besides this, I also find it hard for Republicans to believe that any other candidate would draw more support from Independents, Libertarians, or Disgruntled Democrats than Ron Paul would. Even from the military servicemen/women, Ron Paul has 3 times the amount of campaign contributions as the nearest Republican candidate, and more than all of them combined. It is interesting how so many in the military are not as concerned about his non-interventionist, America-first foreign policy as establishment Republicans are…as distinct from the pre-millenial dispensationalist/zionist Israel-first policy we have had, you know, to protect Israel, our largest year recipient of foreign aid, who “only” has 300 nuclear missiles in addition to a full military/air force/navy with which to defend itself. (If you don’t believe that such underlying principles influence the foreign policy thinking of the ‘neoconservative’ Republican establishment, just check out the prominent dispensationalist “Joel Rosenberg” (joelrosenberg.com) who recently was favorably interviewed by Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity on their radio shows.

    As for this fear that he is “for” the legalization of illicit drugs, pro-abortion, or gay marriage, he is not for them personally, but yet is simply for abiding by the Constitution, stating that such matters are for the individual states to decide in their given sovereignty, thereby limiting the federal government only to its enumerated powers. In that light, there is a good chance that at least some states would ban abortion. Secondly, while affirming personal liberty (as the Constitution does), he has always stressed the need for personal responsibility as well, not to rely on the government (or fellow tax-payer) to foot the bill for any poor decisions you make with such personal liberty.

    Now Grace, while I think Ron Paul is “electable” in terms of the presidential race, had you asked whether or not I thought he actually will get “elected”, my answer would be: Very unlikely. I highly doubt he will prevail in the Republican primary, which at this point most likely looks like it will go to Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, I am least grateful that some of the things he has been saying for the past 30 years are at least being parroted for the meantime by other Republican candidates (although even there I highly doubt any of them would seriously follow through on pushing for abolishment, let alone even pushing for regular audits, of the Federal Reserve, after they were elected to president.)

  • JunkerGeorg

    Grace @55 writes:

    JunkerGeorg @ 54
    YOU WROTE: “Ron Paul is indeed electable and the more people are truly waking up, the more you see this reflected in the polls. “

    REALLY? Are you sure about that?
    —————

    Yes, I am sure he is “electable”, that is, when it comes to the presidential election. Check out the most recent Harris Poll, in which only two Republican candidates were projected to beat Obama in a head-to-head, namely, Mitt Romney at 53%-47% and Ron Paul at 51%-49%. Besides this, I also find it hard for Republicans to believe that any other candidate would draw more support from Independents, Libertarians, or Disgruntled Democrats than Ron Paul would. Even from the military servicemen/women, Ron Paul has 3 times the amount of campaign contributions as the nearest Republican candidate, and more than all of them combined. It is interesting how so many in the military are not as concerned about his non-interventionist, America-first foreign policy as establishment Republicans are…as distinct from the pre-millenial dispensationalist/zionist Israel-first policy we have had, you know, to protect Israel, our largest year recipient of foreign aid, who “only” has 300 nuclear missiles in addition to a full military/air force/navy with which to defend itself. (If you don’t believe that such underlying principles influence the foreign policy thinking of the ‘neoconservative’ Republican establishment, just check out the prominent dispensationalist “Joel Rosenberg” (joelrosenberg.com) who recently was favorably interviewed by Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity on their radio shows.

    As for this fear that he is “for” the legalization of illicit drugs, pro-abortion, or gay marriage, he is not for them personally, but yet is simply for abiding by the Constitution, stating that such matters are for the individual states to decide in their given sovereignty, thereby limiting the federal government only to its enumerated powers. In that light, there is a good chance that at least some states would ban abortion. Secondly, while affirming personal liberty (as the Constitution does), he has always stressed the need for personal responsibility as well, not to rely on the government (or fellow tax-payer) to foot the bill for any poor decisions you make with such personal liberty.

    Now Grace, while I think Ron Paul is “electable” in terms of the presidential race, had you asked whether or not I thought he actually will get “elected”, my answer would be: Very unlikely. I highly doubt he will prevail in the Republican primary, which at this point most likely looks like it will go to Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, I am least grateful that some of the things he has been saying for the past 30 years are at least being parroted for the meantime by other Republican candidates (although even there I highly doubt any of them would seriously follow through on pushing for abolishment, let alone even pushing for regular audits, of the Federal Reserve, after they were elected to president.)

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    as I am a leader in the pro-life movement- I can attest to the fact that people are waking up to the issue-
    as to your —-” But seriously, what a non-sequitur.”

    My comparison to the shedding of INNOCENT blood vs/ the sledding of terrorist blood is VERY LOGICAL!!-
    Remember – the Creator asked- ‘What are YOU doing about un-just judges and the shedding of innocent blood—” IS .-59

    and speaking of un – just JUDGES !!!!
    – the power and $$$$ of CAIR – and other muslim groups -
    would have prolonged Anwar al Awlaki ‘s trial for YEARS—

    As to the Constitution ( original intent) – it has been relegated due to lack of instruction of Founding HIStory- by the public -(tax payer $$$$$) education system —for years now-
    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    as I am a leader in the pro-life movement- I can attest to the fact that people are waking up to the issue-
    as to your —-” But seriously, what a non-sequitur.”

    My comparison to the shedding of INNOCENT blood vs/ the sledding of terrorist blood is VERY LOGICAL!!-
    Remember – the Creator asked- ‘What are YOU doing about un-just judges and the shedding of innocent blood—” IS .-59

    and speaking of un – just JUDGES !!!!
    – the power and $$$$ of CAIR – and other muslim groups -
    would have prolonged Anwar al Awlaki ‘s trial for YEARS—

    As to the Constitution ( original intent) – it has been relegated due to lack of instruction of Founding HIStory- by the public -(tax payer $$$$$) education system —for years now-
    Carol-CS

  • Dust

    Cincinnatus at 51…as per my recollection of Clinton, he did get off to a rough start and lost the congress in 94, but then he did ok…almost like he learned something from the 94 election? and it doesn’t seem like the current POTUS has learned from the 2010 elections and/or the special elections since.

    Here’s another piece of common sense advice, that may explain why they will lose in 2012. “The first rule, if you find yourself digging a hole, is to stop digging!” And in my humble opinion, unlike Clinton, they have not stopped digging. Could be wrong..it’s not like we can plug our ideas into an algorithm that gives us the correct answer :(

    Of course, Clinton ran against the very charismatic Bob Dole, which alone should make you wonder if the RNC thought they could win anyway? So it will make a big difference on what kind of candidate gets the nomination. It will depend on if the economy is still very bad. It could depend on the outcome of various global events that could turn into a crisis…which could work for or against the POTUS reelection. Like I say, too bad we don’t have the algorithm!

    Guess another difference between Obama and Clinton is Clinton got something like only 41% of the popular vote in 92. Ross Perot took away something like 19% and many folks think Bush would have won, if not for Perot? Who knows and really who cares? But the point is that Clinton didn’t come into his first term with the same kind of huge expectations like Obama, and so perhaps got away with a bit more? My point with the “fool me once” thing is that Obama came in with huge expectations, and if he is perceived as having not delivered on those issues, then the letdown will be a huge shift in attitudes and voter preference. My guess we are already seeing that, and unless things change, or unless the RNC brings back Bob Dole, it won’t be an easy fight for reelection…and indeed, the “shame on me” factor will dominate the algorithm and the answer is no reelection for you :)

  • Dust

    Cincinnatus at 51…as per my recollection of Clinton, he did get off to a rough start and lost the congress in 94, but then he did ok…almost like he learned something from the 94 election? and it doesn’t seem like the current POTUS has learned from the 2010 elections and/or the special elections since.

    Here’s another piece of common sense advice, that may explain why they will lose in 2012. “The first rule, if you find yourself digging a hole, is to stop digging!” And in my humble opinion, unlike Clinton, they have not stopped digging. Could be wrong..it’s not like we can plug our ideas into an algorithm that gives us the correct answer :(

    Of course, Clinton ran against the very charismatic Bob Dole, which alone should make you wonder if the RNC thought they could win anyway? So it will make a big difference on what kind of candidate gets the nomination. It will depend on if the economy is still very bad. It could depend on the outcome of various global events that could turn into a crisis…which could work for or against the POTUS reelection. Like I say, too bad we don’t have the algorithm!

    Guess another difference between Obama and Clinton is Clinton got something like only 41% of the popular vote in 92. Ross Perot took away something like 19% and many folks think Bush would have won, if not for Perot? Who knows and really who cares? But the point is that Clinton didn’t come into his first term with the same kind of huge expectations like Obama, and so perhaps got away with a bit more? My point with the “fool me once” thing is that Obama came in with huge expectations, and if he is perceived as having not delivered on those issues, then the letdown will be a huge shift in attitudes and voter preference. My guess we are already seeing that, and unless things change, or unless the RNC brings back Bob Dole, it won’t be an easy fight for reelection…and indeed, the “shame on me” factor will dominate the algorithm and the answer is no reelection for you :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    A caller to an investing show on the radio said that since there is no way for the economy to improve, he urges everyone to vote for anyone with a D after his name because then the public perception will be that the economic problems are the fault of Democrats. Pretty funny because there is a grain of truth to it. While austerity on the part of government could get the government closer to solvency, it can’t fix the US economy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    A caller to an investing show on the radio said that since there is no way for the economy to improve, he urges everyone to vote for anyone with a D after his name because then the public perception will be that the economic problems are the fault of Democrats. Pretty funny because there is a grain of truth to it. While austerity on the part of government could get the government closer to solvency, it can’t fix the US economy.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X