Republican nominations - Page 567

On March 28 2012 05:04 Tor wrote:


We have a conservative majority elected by 40% of Canadians who voted: with a Prime Minister who essentially has as much inflence over canadian policy as the combined influence of the U.S. president, plus a majority house and a 60 member senate super majority has over american policy. Never the less it's been said the conservative government is more to the left (on most issues) than Obama's democrat party as the nature of our (basically) three party system tends to promote a centrist position for parties lest they risk obscurity. The nature of either systems are incredibly different as our parties are usually forced to vote along party lines and there is very little in the way of checks and balances in our system (both an unelected senate that rarely uses it's power and an only symbolic head of state who represents the queen) compared to the U.S. system that makes it nearly impossible to do anything without a strong majority (hence the difficulty in simply passing a budget in the U.S.)

I find it unlikely that a 3 party system would work for presidential elections since one member is likely to cut into anothers support rather than a true centrist standing out (for instance if Ron Paul ran it could hurt the republicans thus making a democratic president more likely). As far as house and senate positions, since each member has really no way of being punished for voting against a party rule there really isn't truely a two party system. Members of the house and senate use their party affiliation to help present their point of view, but technically are not bound by their parties policy (where as in Canada if you vote against your party in a non-open vote you are likely to be kicked out of your party and be forced to change parties or be considered an independant)

On March 28 2012 05:09 BluePanther wrote:


Also, just some insight... I work part-time in the campaign headquarters of a rather prominent Republican. The new generation of Republican candidates (such as myself, eventually) are far more socially liberal that the current generation. It will be interesting to see how this power struggle plays itself out when that tipping point comes (and it will).

On March 28 2012 07:27 Signet wrote:

I'd bet that's an interesting experience.

My bet is we'll have 2-3 elections (2 year cycles) where Democrats crush Republicans on the basis of social issues, giving them the ability to implement a few really progressive economic programs as well. After that the GOP will gladly pass the torch on to people who can win.

Although I've also observed that young Democrsts are more open to market-based economic policies than their party elders, particularly with regard to Social Security.

On March 28 2012 08:52 Wegandi wrote:


The country is becoming more libertarian (read: Classically Liberal), thus going back to our founding roots of individual liberty & Non-Proviso Lockean Homesteading / Natural Law. It's not a surprise since a great majority of Independents are highly libertarian (As you can see in nearly every poll that Ron beats Obama and the rest (GOP candidates) with Independents by double digit+ margins), couple the fact that the young generation is split between libertarian and progressive spells a change a' brewin.

Honestly though, the country won't stay together too much longer. When the debt implodes and the real issues come to the forefront it'll expose the deep, wide, and cavernous divide that exists in this country. Simply put, the political bonds will need to be broken, ala the Declaration of Independence. Let California become their own country, NY the same, Alabama, and NH their own. I still find it excruciatingly stupid to have such disparate peoples being forcibly associated which just brews hatred, conflict, resentment, animosity, avarice, and all sorts of negative consequences such as having peoples ruled by people they despise (either culturally, or what not). As a Floridian and soon to be New Hampsherite, it is stupid to have folks in NY or California who share nearly none of my beliefs and culture to force their views and culture upon me.

Rant about geographical and population size incongruius with liberty & republicanism. (See: Anti-Federalist Papers)

You think Greece is bad...just wait until the decades of deficits and entitlements / MIC spending catches up with reality.

On March 28 2012 08:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Apparently Mitt Romney just identified Russia as America's "foe."

Perhaps context is need, such as comparing international power, or war machine, but the word "foe" just doesn't seem to work when referring to Russia these days... I'm certainly not implying that we are best pals (we obviously are not), but candidates need not say these sorts of things.

But Mr. Medvedev also criticized the political response in the United States, saying that the attitude of some American presidential candidates toward Russia — especially Mr. Romney’s characterization of Russia as an enemy of the United States — “smells of Hollywood.” Mr. Romney told CNN on Monday that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the United States.

“Look at your watch,” Mr. Medvedev told reporters on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit in Seoul. “It is 2012 not the mid 1970s. No matter what party someone belongs to, he should pay attention to political realities.”

On March 28 2012 08:57 DoubleReed wrote:


This is ridiculous. If anything we are more bound to each other due to the fact that we are all American. That greatly lessens animosity because we all consider each other to be the "same people." Just because people disagree about certain issues does not mean we should separate completely. What an idiotic idea.

I mean by those accounts the country would be WAY more divided than just the 50 states. Northern California vs Southern California. Rural New York vs City New York. I can't even imagine Texas. States are not homogeneous.

On March 28 2012 14:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wow Romney can't even seem casual when on a Late Night Talk Show, this time Leno.

On March 28 2012 14:53 Probulous wrote:


It's hard to be relaxed when you are saying stuff you don't believe. Play some Mafia, you'll know the feeling

On March 29 2012 11:49 Jibba wrote:

Apparently you're new to politics/cable news.

Mitt Romney has grown so accustomed to defending his old health care position to the right that he may have trouble defending his new one from the left.

The presidential candidate was so jarred by a simple line of questioning from — of all people — Jay Leno on Tuesday night about coverage for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions to the point that he seemed to suggest a new position out of thin air.

Leno pressed Romney repeatedly on what to do about uninsured children and certain workers whose jobs don’t allow them to obtain coverage. Romney at first stressed that he would work to make sure “people with pre-existing conditions, as long as they have been insured before, they are going to be able to continue to have insurance.” But when Leno continued, Romney seemed to propose going further than his own plan allows.

“We’ll look at a circumstance where someone is ill and hasn’t been insured so far,” Romney said, “but people who have the chance to be insured — if you are working in the auto business, for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure their employees, you look at the circumstances that exist — but people who have done their best to get insured are going to be able to be covered.”

The trouble is, Romney hasn’t suggested any way people who have been ill can obtain insurance in the first place.

Romney has been under fire in recent weeks for omitting crucial details from his policy proposals that make them easily adapted to both sides of the debate. But in this case his out-of-thin-air help for the sick suggestion seems more like a slip of a tongue, if a telling one.

"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

In fact, in 1974, people who identified as conservatives were among the most confident in science as an institution, with liberals trailing slightly behind, and moderates bringing up the rear. Liberals have remained fairly steady in their opinion of the scientific community over the interim, while conservative trust in science has plummeted.

Interestingly, the most educated conservatives have led that charge. Conservatives with college degrees began distrusting science earlier and more forcefully than other conservatives, upending assumptions that less educated people on the whole are more distrustful of science.


"People are now viewing science as part of government regulation," Gauchat says.

Gauchat says he's done other analyses that show in Europe, the trend is flipped on its head. Liberals show a greater distrust of the scientific community. "It's which debates are salient in the public. Maybe this is a trend that will reverse if genetically modified foods becomes a big deal in the U.S." he said.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich held a previously unreported meeting on Saturday, The Washington Times reported Thursday, as rumors swirl that the former House speaker will drop out of the race.

Gingrich told the paper that he did not make a deal with the former Massachusetts governor to quit his run, which he has insisted will go on even after numerous primary losses and a Tuesday report that his staff will be cut by a third. He said Romney did not offer him help with campaign debts or a position in his potential administration in exchange for leaving the race.

He also reiterated that he plans to continue his bid until Republican National Convention in August.

"There is no agreement of any kind, and I plan to go all the way to Tampa," he told The Washington Times.

The meeting took place in New Orleans, La., before the Louisiana primary, a source told the paper.

On March 30 2012 16:14 zalz wrote:

Ooh well, anti-Santorum will hear nigger, pro-Santorum will hear...whatever they want to hear.