Political & Elections

When can we trust the financial people

When can we trust business

When  can we trust companies

When can we trust health insurance companies

When can we trust auto/home/life insurance companies

When can we trust Congress

When can we trust our police

When can we trust the President.

When can we trust our religions.

 

You can trust me.

 

??????

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 23rd of June 2011 10:40:41 PM

I'm in SLS and poets' camp on this one. I simply can't bring myself to watch these debates yet. My whole life has seemed like a campaign cycle. Considering the first campaign that I really remember (and understood what was going on) was the 2000 elections, my life has been a nonstop campaign season. I just want a break, which is why I haven't even been watching tv (the medicare commercials are getting on my nerves like no other)!

"(funny how they never ponder the flip side of that, whether or not those of no faith will."

Was that sarcasm?

Of course while any canditate would be glad of that extra 9% or so, the political cost of trying to appeal to that demographic would obviate the effort.

Vote for me but don't say I asked you to do so.

 

 

 

Note that is 83% of primary voters, not general election voters leaning Republican.

All evangelicals are social conservatives. You simply lumped them in with others to make a larger set: "social conservatives". Any group of less than 50% can be marginalized in this way.

Most evangelicals are right handed but they are only a fraction of the right handed members of the Republican Party.

Face it. Republicans have got to "thump the Bible" to get elected.

The question is whether Romney can "thump the Book of Mormon" also and get elected.

(Note Mormons use the Bible as one of their "Holy books").

 

 

Evangelicals are one third of the party.

Which clearly defined group within the party is larger and more important to the success of Republicans?

Wouldn't it be fair and accurate to say that evangelicals are the largest group within the Republican Party?

 

 

Americans are not idiotic enough to buy into boneheads with these kind of ideas:

Of course they are.  They were idiotic enough to buy into the fantasy that Mr. Obama was competent despite absolutely no evidence.  Of course, there couldn't be evidence because he is not competent.

But he sure is pretty and would make the greatest king this nation has ever known!

Americans are not idiotic enough to buy into boneheads with these kind of ideas:



Hey rich folks, Tim Pawlenty wants to cut your taxes. A lot.

Under the terms of his recently revealed economic plan, Americans in the top 20% of earners would see their taxes cut by an average of $23,500, an 8.6 percentage point drop in their tax rate, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

565Print CommentAnd the top 1% would get an annual average reduction of $261,000, a 14.8 percentage point drop.

Meanwhile, Americans in the lowest 20% of income would see their taxes drop by an average of only $23, a 0.2 percentage point change in their tax rate.

Put another way, Americans who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will see their after-tax income increase by 1.7%, while Americans who earn more than $1 million will see a 24.1% bump.

Under Pawlenty's plan, taxes on capital gains, interest income, dividends and estates would all be eliminated. Individuals would pay a 10% tax rate on their first $50,000 in income and 25% on all additional earnings.

If you thought the Bush tax cuts were big, Pawlenty's are on steroids.

"This is taking the Bush policy and doubling down, and maybe even doubling down again," said Joe Rosenberg, a researcher at the Tax Policy Center. "It's really quite dramatic."


0:00 / 2:22 GOP candidates slam Obama economy
Add in Pawlenty's corporate tax plan, and all that cutting means the federal government will bring in almost $7.6 trillion less in revenue over ten years.

For a government that already spends far more than it brings in, that spells trouble, according to Rosenberg, who said revenue would end up around 13.5% of GDP, far below historical norms.

How the economy could break Obama
"The revenue yield makes it an implausible tax system to implement," Rosenberg said.

In a statement to CNNMoney, Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant said that the tax side of the proposal should not be scored without considering the potential economic growth that would accompany the cuts.

To help make up for the lost revenue, Pawlenty's plan relies on sustained GDP growth of 5% -- a feat rarely accomplished -- to bring in an additional $3.8 trillion in revenue over ten years.

But that will only cover half the lost tax revenue. Of course, Pawlenty also wants dramatic cuts to spending.

As president, he would ask Congress to grant him emergency authority to freeze spending at current levels, and then impound up to 5% of federal spending until the budget is balanced.

Earlier this week, Pawlenty defended his bullish economic plan during the CNN debate in New Hampshire.

"This idea that we can't have 5% growth in America is hogwash. It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5% growth and Brazil can have 5% growth, then the United States of America can have 5% growth," Pawlenty said.

Will the evangelicals support a Mormon?

The better question would be whether the mainstream Protestants would support a Mormon and, like Pima, I think the answer to both is yes.  On the right, we perceive Mr. Obama as having done so much damage to our country and our future that we would vote for pretty much anyone to get rid of him.

Will the evangelicals support a Mormon?

Can the Republicans win without the far righteous? 

Romney could be the Republican Party's signal to the evangelicals that they are not really respected or liked by the Republican establishment and there is no possibility of advancing their goals politically. 

Of course the Republicans could pitch Mormon vs. Muslim.

 

He did used to be a democrat.

Maybe he's just over-compensating? Not about being yet another long-serving Texas governor but the theocratic angle? Or, maybe he's just misunderstood and its the usual left-wing, midnight crazies that show up whenever the moon's full.

Well, with the democratic party sitting pat with the One, they're not really putting out their own nutbowl this time, are they? Kind of a shame too, because this time around I would have loved seeing the inevitable comparisons between how Obama and Kucinich would govern - two filberts with nary a distinguishing nuance of taste between them.

Sorry, but my money is on Perry ending up the nominee this time around. If he actually runs, that is. The reason being I don't think the Tea Party (and all those in the republican party that either identify with it or at least sympathize with a lot of it's concerns) is going to be satisfied with anything that looks remotely like what we have and that healthcare thing is the wrong makeup for Romney to be wearing.

Besides, if I can get Perry out of Texas maybe I can finagle some sort of compassionate waiver and get my kids out of these state run church schools.

Fortunately, I've never had to choose between a Republican and a Democrat who was an horrendous fool. I don't call Romney a nut - not yet anyway. Who knows what he may end up saying and doing in order to please the nuttier wing of the party in order to get through the primary. I could never support him, however.  The Republican platform is a dealbreaker for me on several issues. Lately, with the candidates having to move more and more to the right on social issues, I think even less of them. As long as the President chooses the Supreme Court, I will never support a Republican for President. Personally, I don't see how anyone could listen to Cain and not call him a nut. Rick Perry - seriously? A theocratic secessionist President?

It's likely Perry is going to enter the race

 

Ahh - then an offering of mixed nuts.

Cartera wrote:

---

Cain is a nut. He says that God spoke through his granddaughter to tell him to run. He believes life begins at conception and has said that he would vet Supreme Court nominees to be sure they agree. One of his goals is to take the country back to its biblical roots. He's the guy who says that Planned Parenthood's goal is to kill black babies. Add in the homophobia and he's about as nutty as they get.

---

 

 thanks... that is probably the guy I read on the metro then.  He had one column about how legalizing gay marriage is the same as legalizing polygamy.

I did not watch even though I could have done so. Given what a horrible job Obama has done, I cannot imagine voting for him. On the other hand, I am so sick of hearing the Republicans say tax cuts will solve all of our problems. The Bush tax cuts were a mistake and should be permitted to expire now.

Cain is a nut. He says that God spoke through his granddaughter to tell him to run. He believes life begins at conception and has said that he would vet Supreme Court nominees to be sure they agree. One of his goals is to take the country back to its biblical roots. He's the guy who says that Planned Parenthood's goal is to kill black babies. Add in the homophobia and he's about as nutty as they get.

"I watched it. Not a weak field."

This is a joke - right?

Not much of a 'debate' but more of a being a pretty face. 

Bachmann is pretty cute. And so is that former governor from Michigan (?). 

I like the tall guy, with the square jaw. John Wayne-ish. 

Parts of it. 

I'd start believing the R's when they acknowledge that some of their policies became rotting fruit or is sterile. I noticed that some are reputing the Wars. Of course all were reputing the Deficit;  W's chief-of-staff, commented that he on behalf of W, personally solicited Obama to vote for raising the Debt ceiling. 

--Obama is wrong, all the time. We R's, are never wrong, and can make every well 'again'.--