We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, October 18. 2011
As far as the current status of the election goes, I suppose the primary question is, can Cain actually, really, for-sure, possibly, maybe, somewhat, somehow beat Obama? Because if he actually, really, for-sure doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, then the next Morning Meeting at MSM Headquarters post is going to be full of self-congratulatory remarks as the gang pats each other on the back for the plethora of Cain Would Beat Obama In Face-off, Poll Says headlines that have been floating around recently.
Remember, as I noted in my very first election post, the plan is to always push the 2nd- or 3rd-place Republican contender in order to diminish the person holding the #1 spot, thereby keeping the masses in a state of flux. One thing we don't want is for anyone to actually be making any decisions out there. Keep 'em unsettled, keep 'em guessing, right up to the day of the election. Then, the American voter might still be so undecided when they hit the voting booth that they think, "Oh, maybe I'll just go ahead and vote for that nice Mr. Obama. He's so articulate!"
Utah readers, you'll be crushed to learn that Huntsman is boycotting the event because of the possibility that Nevada might move its caucus up on the schedule. That sounds a little thin, but the two states do abut each other, so there's bound to be a little rivalry between them and there might be more to this than meets the eye. An article on the debate is here.
Short and sweet.
Tonight, 8 pm EST, CNN. Democratic lapdog Anderson Cooper is moderating, so it's
(Hey, big businesses have more than one VP — why not us?)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
My opinion (and we all know what that is worth) is that Perry is toast - done - stick a fork in him. He's pulled a Bachmann and will not be able to recover no matter how many greebacks he has in the bank. I honestly think he's what I thought he was - a flash in the pan of national politics.
Cain is another matter. He has hit on something that may, or may not, resonate on a national level. It doesn't hurt that he has a very open personality and is not afraid of expressing opinions even if they don't fit the narrative. My only concern is that he has a tendency to sometimes shoot first and ask questions later - but he appears to be a very quick study and there is no question about his ability to adjust to circumstances and still stick to his message.
Huntsman - meh - who cares?
My opinion of Romney being the inevitable nominee is still intact - I just can't see establishment Republicans supporting Cain - see Chris Christie who knows on which side his bread was buttered. And that is the real issue here - establishment GOP'ers have never embraced the Tea Party and will never do so.
The collapsed schedule is also a negative for the GOP. This does not help anybody other than Romney - and you can be sure some of the machinations behind the scenes have kept this firmly in mind.
I think Cain can beat Obama. I'm not convinced Romney can as he will be attacked as Democrat Lite.
Cain/McMillan 2012 - The Damn Rent Is Too High Party!!
"meh - who cares?"
Darn it. The plan was to go get your "Who cares!!!!!1!!!" comment from the last pre-debate post, stick it in here, then let you know how much time I'd just saved you. That's what friends are for, right? Instead, I got to talking with the neighbor with the 42" chest (on a 98-lb frame) and, well, I forgot.
BTW, did you click on the 'Paulbots' link above? Pretty funny.
Well, as a resident of Utah just returned from a visit to Massachusetts, I can state that Huntsman interests me not at all. On the other hand, my aunt in Massachusetts came down on Romney as a two faced liar, and I told her that I was of the same opinion, thus proving that a western conservative and an eastern democrat can find common ground.
Perry/Cain and Gingrich as Sec State
I would vote for that ticket and would enjoy all the wailing and angst that line-up would create with our libtard family and friends.
How cruel of you, Phil. And here I thought 'compassion' was your middle name. You'd actually do that to the innocent liberals? Give them another Texan to go crazy over, then totally screw up their entire racial agenda? It'd be a friggin' nightmare. Goddamn mental wards all over the land would be bursting at the seams. My advice if Perry/Cain wins? Invest heavily in the anti-psychotic drug market.
Perry yes, Cain NO. The only thing I come away with as far as these "debates" are concerned is that those who watch them see and hear what they want to see and hear. And it seems that a lot of people who post comments are barking moonbats. Don't all those Cain supporters who despise Romney for being slick and a RINO hear when Cain agrees with Romney over and over and says that he'll support him 100%? He's Romney's stalking horse and will so what Huckabee did for McCain--give all his votes to Romney. In fact, that's exactly what he said he will do. I'm getting very, very depressed.
First off, there's no reason to put "debates" in quotes. This is the same thing they've been doing since Kennedy/Nixon. If they're not actual "debates", well, that's the word they use, and mocking it doesn't do any good.
Second, be comforted by the fact that no matter which candidate wins the nomination, he or she will be a piss of a lot better than who's in the White House now. That's really the bottom line. No candidate's perfect, but so what? It's not an ideal world, but we accept the fact and press forward with what we have. Anything -- anything! -- will be an improvement.
You criticize those who cause stife and confusion among GOP supporters, but you routinely do the same by bashing on Ron Paul.
Paul would win the general election, he's got the best ideas, the best mind, and a consistent track record.
Why bash him?
A fair question.
Did you click on the 'Paulbots' link? That would be answer #1. While I'm not blaming Paul, himself, for the actions of his followers, I note he hasn't come out and told them to knock it the fuck off.
Second, as I stated in my very first election post and possibly since then, I adore the guy and totally agree with 75% of his policies. As a Centrist, I'm much closer to Libertarians than any other one specific party when it comes to ideology.
That other 25% makes me want to run screaming into the night.
But, let's be fair. I don't just bash Paul, I've attached terrible, mean, snide, rude, nasty handles to all of them, and that's not counting the cruel, repulsive, horrid things I've said about them in the 'Morning Meeting' posts. An equal opportunity defamer, that's me.
Back to Paul, I didn't 'bash' him up above, I just commented on the audience's response. As far as bringing our troops home NOW, I couldn't agree more. Certainly a shitload of them. It's just become a massive government jobs program at this point, and, as evidenced by the (1) need for a 'Surge' in order to (finally) get the job done in Iraq, and (2) the continuing need of a 'Surge' to do the same thing in Afghanistan, our armed forces have obviously just become political tools. If they weren't, the 'Surge' would have happened right at the beginning and, instead of "surge", would since be referred to as "Doing the job right the first time".
"A place for everything and everything in it's place."
"Measure once, cut twice. Measure twice, cut once."
"A job worth doing is worth doing right."
Cut the military expense down to 20%, cut foreign aid down to 20%, cut NASA down to 20%, cut the NEA down to, no, just eliminate the assholes altogether.
Doc's 20-20-20-0 Plan.
Just returned from a road trip through southern Michigan with a focus on repairs at an old farm house plus getting a jump on stuff my host needed for hunting season.
Fruit orchards are now corn fields. The cost of hiring parttime people to pick fruit is apparently more costly than harvesting corn, especially with the ethanol subsidies.
Sole-proprietors are closing up shop far earlier than last year, notable because the color-changing, which draws many tourists, hasn't yet taken place. One who was shutting down on the 17th said the property taxes were killing the profits and consumers are "simply not spending."
As we breakfasted at the small town diners, one common complaint prevailed: keep it simple. That might be the appeal of Cain (9-9-9) and Paul (same platform for the last how-many years?). People are tired of 2000 pages here, 1500 pages there that totally send 5-plus years of planning into the stratosphere. They have no idea whether or not they are or are going to break a law. They are tired of needing a lawyer, tax attorney (separate), CPA, CONNECTION in government (lobbyist) and membership in whatever to make it through the next election cycle or presentation to their banker for a loan. Low interest rates are useless if you can get the loan.
One old-timer said he was being hassled over some land the government wants to appropriate in light of Obama's job creation program that might widen a highway. He went to a local attorney who asked for $10,000 up front to "engage" the powers-that-be regarding compensation for cutting off chunks of his farmland.
"H--L, I can't afford this cup of coffee and toast, except that I trade this coffee shop for eggs from my ancient hen, so where am I going to get $10 thou? My hen has a better hope for the future than I have; she's still laying these &%$@ eggs!"
Sorry, my post should have read: Low interest rates are useless if you CAN'T get the loan.
Also, a comment on 9-9-9. Cain seems to have studied Milton Friedman who, at some point, suggested a "minimum standard of income" to cover the basic necessities. At the time I think (???) it was $10,000 in his example for a head-of-household with smaller add-ons per spouse and children. I would like to see Cain address the consequences of that deduction on his 9% income tax policy.