Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/16/frum.gop.florida.crist.rubio.battle/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINIO...dex.html</a> Certainly not every GOP member would agree with Frum's take (he's been vilified before for not toeing the line on other things, on these boards by staunch far right myopians who no longer post), but it's interesting to see that he's saying essentially the same things the Dems have periodically said, i.e. if they don't all get along and generally agree they're going to continue to beat themselves. He spotlights the recent New York House race and says the upcoming Florida Senate race is next if they don't wise up. Apparently it's required to disagree with Obama on EVERYTHING, or they come after you. "The battle in Florida pits Gov. Charlie Crist against former Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio. Both men claim to be conservative, pro-life, tax cutters. On the issues, they would seem to agree far more than they disagree. But on one issue they have disagreed passionately: President Obama's fiscal stimulus. Squeezed by his state's desperate fiscal condition, Crist endorsed and campaigned for the Obama stimulus. Inspired by his conservative ideology, Rubio opposed stimulus." "Crist, who as recently as 2008 topped the libertarian Cato Institute's list of favorite governors, has been consigned to pariah status. Here's the significance of the Florida contest: Every state except Vermont is legally required to balance its budget." And then, the best, most telling part: "A few days ago, I was talking to a roomful of young conservatives about the crisis. All agreed in denouncing both the bank bailouts done under TARP and the stimulus. I asked: OK fine, what was the alternative? There was a short pause, and then somebody laughed: "I guess it's lucky that we weren't in power." That's not much of a motto for a would-be national governing coalition. If all we conservatives have to offer is oppositionism, then opposition is the job we'll be assigned to fill."
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I live in Florida and I would be awfully surprised if Crist lost to Rubio. I'm hopeful that Crist is the future of the Republican party. A moderate Republican as opposed to a right-wing nutjob. Time will tell. But, if Palin is really in the conversation for 2012 I will revoke the R behind my name and go Independent. She would cause the implosion.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm sending a substantial contribution to Rubio. You should've revoked the R when she was on the ticket last time, wahoo. You should be ashamed of yourself for even supporting a ticket that COULD HAVE resulted in a President Palin (did you?).
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>I'm hopeful that Crist is the future of the Republican party.<< Not if he's a closeted gay man as has been bandied about for quite some time...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 You should've revoked the R when she was on the ticket last time, wahoo. You should be ashamed of yourself for even supporting a ticket that COULD HAVE resulted in a President Palin (did you?).<< Don't blame me, I was voting with my other head...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I didn't vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. I didn't think either set of candidates was qualified to be President. I'm not ashamed to be a Republican. I'm upset with the candidates that my party have picked as of late, at least on the national stage. I don't vote party lines and I never have. I vote for the candidate.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Anyone proclaiming the death of the Republican Party doesn't understand the macro factors in U.S. elections. Next year's election will be a referendum on the economy. If the economy remains in the dumps, incumbents will lose and Republicans will regain control. If the economy perks up with enough steam to put people back to work, the Democrats will retain control. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology or party platform. It will all be about the pocketbook.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology or party platform.<< To a large degree, I agree with you. The economy is huge in terms of who wins and loses. But there are also ideological factors that come into play, especially when you are talking about the base of either party. Remember that George Bush won his first election after a long run of economic boom. Yes, the dot com meltdown had begun, but there was also Al Gore's personality that many people found off-putting (the "lock box", "I'm gonna explain this to you real slow" speech pattern many found insulting). I don't think the GOP has any economic magic bullets to put into play, so they'll portray 2009 and 2010 as years we went all socialist. It's all they bring to the table.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I mentioned on another thread the other day that I believe Palin will run. And she may even win the nomination. If not her, then maybe Huckabee. These two are the only candidates that will satisfy the kook fringe, and that's where the power lies in the GOP right now. They won't sit still for any candidate not pandering to their fear and ignorance. Not Pawlenty, not Romney, not Jindal. And the peculiarities of the 'winner take all' arrangement of GOP state primaries practically assures a reactionary nominee. Below is a link to an column that explains it more thoroughly, but the short version is illustrated by the `08 primaries. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2009/11/16/how_palin_could_win_the_gop_nomination_224722.html" target="_blank">http://www.realclearpolitics.c...722.html</a> >> 43 percent of the 2008 Republican delegates were selected in primaries where the winner corralled all the delegates by winning a state or congressional district. As a result of the Republicans' to-the-victor-go-the-spoils method of picking convention delegates, Mike Huckabee finished second in 16 states and won a paltry 74 delegates for his trouble. In the name of fairness, the Democrats have banned such winner-take-all primaries, which is why the nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dragged into June. The Democratic Party's method of proportional representation meant that neither candidate could score a game-ending victory until all the primaries ended. In contrast, the Republicans have long been more concerned with avoiding a lengthy and divisive nomination fight than in designing a philosophically pure system of allocating delegates. Here is why this kind of arcane detail may well smooth Palin's path to the 2012 nomination. While nothing is certain this far out, Palin seems perfectly positioned to appeal to the conservative party activists who turn out for the opening-gun Iowa caucuses. Moderate New Hampshire, of course, is apt to be a daunting challenge for Palin. Next stop on the traditional GOP calendar is the firewall South Carolina primary where, as Kamarck writes, "candidates such as Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson (who were seen as too radical to win a general election)...could be stopped early on." But Palin would not be a lucky fringe candidate who won a caucus or two; she would be a universally known charismatic figure who could beat the party establishment in this conservative state. In 2008, after South Carolina came a series of winner-take-all primaries in which John McCain rolled up a lopsided delegate lead. McCain won all of Florida's delegates even though he received just 36 percent of the primary vote. In California, where delegates were allocated by congressional districts, McCain won 158 delegates with 42 percent of the popular vote. Mitt Romney received 34 percent of the California vote but was awarded just 12 delegates. In Illinois, Romney won exactly 3 delegates despite his 29-percent share of the primary vote. Because of similar primary rules, McCain won every single delegate in the early February contests in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and Virginia. If Palin launches a 2012 race – and survives the South Carolina primary with her aura intact – she could theoretically sweep the winner-take-all states without ever winning a majority anywhere. The Republican establishment (the congressional leadership, the governors, the major donors and national consultants) could all agree that Palin would be an electoral disaster against Obama in November and still be powerless to halt her juggernaut. <<
Originally Posted By Spyderman >>I didn't vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. I didn't think either set of candidates was qualified to be President.<< I would love to know the reasons why you felt Obama/Biden is not qualified for the job
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I would love to know the reasons why you felt Obama/Biden is not qualified for the job" I didn't feel Obama's background qualified him, and I still have doubts. I don't think there's any question he's learning many things as he goes. He was not a governor, nor a mayor, had no managerial or administrative experience, nor did he ever do much delegating, all things desirable for the job. His background in foreign policy was next to nil, to say nothing of his domestic track record. However, he knew how to sell himself, seemed extremely bright, and was worth a flyer. Moreover, there was no way on God's green Earth I was ever voting for a ticket that included Sarah Palin. Had McCain just about anyone else he would have likely gotten my vote.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper SPP's answer pretty much sums up my thoughts. The ONLY concrete thing we knew about what Obama was going to do for the nation as President was "CHANGE". That's it. He had some limited experience in Congress and did some good work in the public sector. Now, I'm not saying that McCain had much of a better answer than "CHANGE" but at least he had years of public votes with which one could get a fairly good idea as to where he stood on any particular matter. Obama was young, energetic, charismatic, different, etc. All great traits for your next boyfriend but not necessarily for leader of the free world. That said, there was virtually no way he could lose, particularly after Palin was selected as the VP candidate. If my choice is to stick myself in the eye with a needle or a nail...I am going to politely go with option C which is to do neither. That is what I chose to do with the Presidential election. I went to the polls, voted for lots of Republicans and even a number of Democrats, but did not pull the trigger at the top of the ballot. I look forward to the day that I can be inspired by a Presidential candidate again, but last November wasn't it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Anyone proclaiming the death of the Republican Party doesn't understand the macro factors in U.S. elections. Next year's election will be a referendum on the economy. If the economy remains in the dumps, incumbents will lose and Republicans will regain control.*** The Dow has gone up 4,000 points in 8 months, whether a false positive or not (I can't tell but it seems fishy to me), the economy will be dragged along with it by next year, at least for a time.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ I'm hard pressed to say that things won't improve next year. The question is how much and how fast? I think voter sentiment will probably lag the economic trends. I also don't use the Dow as a barometer for the economy. The index is manipulated for an upward bias. When companies destroy themselves, ala GM, they are removed from the Dow and replaced with better performing companies. It doesn't necessarily reflect broad trends in industry. However, the S&P 500 has also rebounded significantly this year and that does show a broader chunk of industry. It will be interesting to see what exactly happens. It's hard to see how you replace all of the spending that originated from home equity loans as a driver for the American consumer. Wages are down and unemployment remains high. Who is spending money in this economy besides the government?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I'm hard pressed to say that things won't improve next year. The question is how much and how fast? I think voter sentiment will probably lag the economic trends.*** I'm not so sure. I was surprised to note a recent CNN poll (granted, hardly scientific but...) which asked if people thought the economy was in a recovery and on the right track. 55% voted "yes". And that was like last week, if the jobs numbers improve and the housing market looks decent, I think most folks will be out of their panic mode by next year and back in the ponzi scheme for another round. ***I also don't use the Dow as a barometer for the economy.*** As you mentioned, the S&P is going along the same lines. Interestingly, they're not all that different even though what you say about the Dow is certainly true.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It's hard to see how you replace all of the spending that originated from home equity loans as a driver for the American consumer.*** What makes you think HELOC's won't come back? It's not as though the government has regulated, well, anything. As soon as the banksters see a profit in it, they'll go right back to the same games.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << What makes you think HELOC's won't come back? >> In order to have HELOCs, you have to have houses worth more than the owner owes. Even if the economy rebounds, housing isn't coming back anytime soon. There has never been a housing collapse that resulted in any immediate return to significant price appreciation within a decade of the collapse. Look for home prices to tread water for the next 5-10 years.
