Perry in 2012?

[Bonam]

What about Romney! He cant campaign on religion because he believes Americans are the real israelites and that the natives have dark skin because of what cain did to able Hes too nutty even for catholics and protestents. Newt and Ron Paul are religious but dont seem to go on and on about it like zealots either.

I dunno. Mormons dont seem any nuttier than Catholics or other types of Christians to me. Once you accept that some all powerful sky zombie created everything and controls everything, whether you believe you eat his self/spawn every Sunday or that Americans are Israelites seems like a minor detail.

Ron Paul I don't think can be too religious. You can't really be a Libertarian and still really be religious without running into a trillion irreconcilable contradictions in your beliefs. But he also doesn't have much/any chance of winning.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

As for Perry's "I'm religious" ad, that's just downright loathsome. Oh where are you non-religious-fanatic conservatives in America?

Are you serious? I don't know one conservative who is a religious fanatic; I know of plenty who are not.

I guess I should be happy I can't vote in the US yet. Zealots or socialists, what a crappy choice.

By the same token, I know of many liberals who are not "socialists." In light of your comments, I assume you see Obama as a "socialist."

And yes, Perry's religious ad is loathsome - that seems to be the general consensus, and not just among the "socialists."

Edited December 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I already said the same thing. It's not a monoculture, by any means. But what is synonymous? If we count the number of states that disallow gay marriage, well...

I'm not the one trying to say anything is "synonymous." There is no one view that applies "to the USA." That's been my point. We are a nation of 300+ million people. We are as diverse as a nation as it gets - what's an "important factor" to the Bible Belt isn't important to California or New England. Or my state of Michigan. The Bible Belt is a minority of the US, yet so many outside the US seem to define the nation by it. It's not accurate. That's my point.

See my view in general, out of touch with reality though I may be, is that there are places like California where it's much more accepted, and places like Texas where it's not.

I've never said otherwise. Again, I repeat. I'm not talking specific areas, specific states and I haven't been responding to comments about specific areas, specific states. I've been responding to comments that take the specific and apply it to the whole. My latest responses have been in regards to the claim that Perry's act, which most are disgusted by, is proof that "religion is an important factor in America." Again. Perry does not represent "America." He represents himself. And seriously, Pat Robertson is a fanatic, not in any way representative of "Americans."

Maybe those states are not good specific examples but it doesn't matter. Better to say, it draws along lines of Liberal and Conservative. Most Liberals would support it, most Conservatives not. And that is where the struggle always lies, the winner in a democracy being whoever gets people off the couch.

Better to not take individual beliefs/actions and apply them to the whole, and when one makes general comments about "Americans" based on one issue that is being blown out of proportion, on one candidate, that is what is happening - and it's ignorant. As I said, I could find one politician in Canada too and apply his/her beliefs to "Canada," as "an important factors in Canada," and I'm sure I'd quickly be corrected - and rightfully so.

Perry will likely not even win the GOP nomination. He speaks for himself. His views are his, not those of "America."

[jbg]

Yes, I'm aware. Nonetheless, when a party controls the presidency as well as both houses of congress, they can often do quite a lot. Obama squandered that opportunity, by trying to achieve bipartisan compromises during the early part of his term. That was certainly a noble goal, but naive. He should have tried to implement as much of his agenda as possible while the Democrats had the power to do so.

Actually he did implement things such as health care and that's why his majority went down in flames. That is the kind of thing that happens alot in this country.

In Canada a Parliamentary majority PM can do pretty much anything he wants, within Constitutional limits or limits by tradition. In the U.S. there's no imposed party discipline. That means that a good number of Senators or Representatives in contested states or districts are always "looking over their shoulders" at how their voters will react to significant changes.

That is one of the reasons that stuff can get pushed through with the distraction of other big news events. The assassination of JFK was Exhibit "A" in that regard. Otherwise impassible tax changes and the Civil Rights Act went through.

Obama pushed health care through with a dubious parliamentary maneuver. I suspect that the House majority was lost, the Senate majority (elected on staggered terms) was reduced, and Obama may well lose the White House as a result of what he did push through.

Edited December 10, 2011 by jbg

[Guest American Woman]

Actually he did implement things such as health care and that's why his majority went down in flames.

Agreed. I even wanted him to lose his majority on that one, and I'm a Democrat. Sometimes not having a majority is not a bad thing - I believe in a system of checks and balances. But Obama certainly has had accomplishments - and I believe he has grown since first taking office. There's nothing like the experience of being POTUS to make one better qualified for carrying out the job. Kennedy learned this early on with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. It's why I think actually being POTUS for over three years gives Obama the edge experience-wise in the upcoming election.

[cybercoma]

Well, with this video I think it's safe to assume that Perry is done:

Oh, and Happy Holidays to you, Mr. Perry.

Hahaha. Is that from reddit or something?

[cybercoma]

.

Edited December 10, 2011 by cybercoma

[dre]

Actually he did implement things such as health care and that's why his majority went down in flames. That is the kind of thing that happens alot in this country.

In Canada a Parliamentary majority PM can do pretty much anything he wants, within Constitutional limits or limits by tradition. In the U.S. there's no imposed party discipline. That means that a good number of Senators or Representatives in contested states or districts are always "looking over their shoulders" at how their voters will react to significant changes.

That is one of the reasons that stuff can get pushed through with the distraction of other big news events. The assassination of JFK was Exhibit "A" in that regard. Otherwise impassible tax changes and the Civil Rights Act went through.

Obama pushed health care through with a dubious parliamentary maneuver. I suspect that the House majority was lost, the Senate majority (elected on staggered terms) was reduced, and Obama may well lose the White House as a result of what he did push through.

Actually he did implement things such as health care

No Obama was utterly defeated on healthcare by members of both parties. He campaigned on a public option, and against private insurance mandate, but legislators in both parties took up the cause of private insurers. In the end he signed what ammounts to a massive corporate welfare giveaway, and tried to sell that bitter defeat as a victory.

[jbg]

No Obama was utterly defeated on healthcare by members of both parties. He campaigned on a public option, and against private insurance mandate, but legislators in both parties took up the cause of private insurers. In the end he signed what ammounts to a massive corporate welfare giveaway, and tried to sell that bitter defeat as a victory.

Is it possible most people didn't want their existing doctor relationships shredded and the legislators heard from their constituents? The "town hall" meetings that many pro-public option Representatives held turned into near-riots, even in staid Greenwich, Connecticut.

[Guest American Woman]

Is it possible most people didn't want their existing doctor relationships shredded and the legislators heard from their constituents? The "town hall" meetings that many pro-public option Representatives held turned into near-riots, even in staid Greenwich, Connecticut.

That possibility aside, Bonam said Obama failed to take advantage of controlling the Senate and House, that he "squandered that opportunity," but he didn't. As you said, he did implement health care, but, as dre said, "legislators in both parties" didn't go with him regarding the public option. So the fact remains that he didn't "squander the opportunity" - he tried to carry out his campaign promise. He failed in spite of controlling the Senate and Congress because neither supported him, not because he "squandered the opportunity." Which, I believe, is the point here.

[Trial-and-Error]

Yes, I'm aware. Nonetheless, when a party controls the presidency as well as both houses of congress, they can often do quite a lot. Obama squandered that opportunity, by trying to achieve bipartisan compromises during the early part of his term. That was certainly a noble goal, but naive. He should have tried to implement as much of his agenda as possible while the Democrats had the power to do so.

Absolutely! I mean, c'mon, look at the horrific legislation Georgie Pordgy got through when he didn't have the whole enchilada and when he did, he took no prisoners. And Barrack don't got no Cheney running interference. Still, Barrack missed the boat big time. But then, I think it is entirely possible that he like Georgie is only the titular head. In fact, I think the public would be mortified to learn what the real deal is in politics on both sides of the border. That's why I've given up listening to the news--which it is NOT--it is only that which they want us to think that we know. We in the West live in the lands of smoke and mirrors.

[Guest Manny]

Absolutely! I mean, c'mon, look at the horrific legislation Georgie Pordgy got through when he didn't have the whole enchilada and when he did, he took no prisoners. And Barrack don't got no Cheney running interference. Still, Barrack missed the boat big time. But then, I think it is entirely possible that he like Georgie is only the titular head. In fact, I think the public would be mortified to learn what the real deal is in politics on both sides of the border. That's why I've given up listening to the news--which it is NOT--it is only that which they want us to think that we know. We in the West live in the lands of smoke and mirrors.

Yep, I see it the same way too. There is far too much at stake for those in power, for the general public to know the real truth.

[monty16]

Rick Perry for pres? But what if he goes and lets the little Ricky out to play again like he did when he was holding that bottle of maple syrup? And what about when he is called upon to use words bigger than macaroni when debating Obama?

[DypeGrearogor]

I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. Let's discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.

[kimmy]

I watched some of last night's debate on ABC, and found the one thing that really astounded me was that Rick Perry is just in a completely different league from the rest of them. As in, the rest of them are pro, and Perry is like Bantam-AA or something.

-k

[Shady]

I watched some of last night's debate on ABC, and found the one thing that really astounded me was that Rick Perry is just in a completely different league from the rest of them. As in, the rest of them are pro, and Perry is like Bantam-AA or something.

-k

It's probably why he's plummeted in the polls.

[kimmy]

It's probably why he's plummeted in the polls.

I think I read that Perry outspent all the other candidates in Iowa, and he got whipped. He's spending a fortune in South Carolina too, and he's going to get whipped again.

Getting crushed in two heavily evangelical states ought to be enough to prove to him that he has no chance, right? I expect this will be the end of the road for Rick.

Huntsman is going to lose badly, but they had to know they had no chance of doing well in South Carolina before they decided to stay in the race, so they must be pinning their hopes on a different primary.

-k

[punked]

I think I read that Perry outspent all the other candidates in Iowa, and he got whipped. He's spending a fortune in South Carolina too, and he's going to get whipped again.

Getting crushed in two heavily evangelical states ought to be enough to prove to him that he has no chance, right? I expect this will be the end of the road for Rick.

Huntsman is going to lose badly, but they had to know they had no chance of doing well in South Carolina before they decided to stay in the race, so they must be pinning their hopes on a different primary.

-k

Huntsman is running for the nomination in 2016 he doesn't have to do anything except not look crazy and up his profile. He has the money to stay in until the end and claim the spot in 2016 Romney did this year and McCain did last year (familiar face not crazy candidate.) He will stay in until he has done enough then he will drop out and endorse Romney. He is running a Romney 2008 campaign.

[jbg]

Huntsman is running for the nomination in 2016 he doesn't have to do anything except not look crazy and up his profile. He has the money to stay in until the end and claim the spot in 2016 Romney did this year and McCain did last year (familiar face not crazy candidate.) He will stay in until he has done enough then he will drop out and endorse Romney. He is running a Romney 2008 campaign.

The only problem with that analysis is what if Romney beats Obama? I'm expecting that to happen.

[punked]

The only problem with that analysis is what if Romney beats Obama? I'm expecting that to happen.

Huntsman clearly doesn't. Considering the Bain attacks in South Carolina dropped Mitts Favorable rating by 7% in 2-3 days Romney is a weak Candidate who will wear the GOP congress around his neck. He came up with Obamacare, and has off shored thousands of American jobs while taking government bail outs. He wont win. Lets get real.

[Shady]

Romney is a weak Candidate who will wear the GOP congress around his neck.

Luckily Obama's an even weaker candidate who will wear his own record around his neck.

He came up with Obamacare, and has off shored thousands of American jobs while taking government bail outs.

Complete nonsense. Your lies are getting more and more ridiculous.

[maple_leafs182]

And then there was four...

Rick Perry is out and he endorsed Gingrich.

[GostHacked]

And then there was four...

Rick Perry is out and he endorsed Gingrich.

I said Perry would be the next Pres ..... I am happy to announce I was wrong!

[dre]

Luckily Obama's an even weaker candidate who will wear his own record around his neck.

I disagree... I think his record is pretty much a wash. About the same ammount of people approve of it as disapprove so it shouldnt be much of a factor.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

And if the economy picks up, its all over...

The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits plummeted last week to 352,000, the fewest since April 2008. The decline added to evidence that the job market is strengthening.

Applications fell 50,000, the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted figure in more than six years, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations, dropped to 379,000. That's the second-lowest such figure in more than three years.

A department spokesman cautioned that volatility at this time of year is common. Applications had jumped two weeks ago, largely because companies laid off thousands of temporary workers hired for the holidays.

Still, when weekly applications fall consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to push down the unemployment rate.

Hiring improves in second half of 2011

"This continues a clear downshift in claims," said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics.

Shepherdson suggested that stronger hiring should follow.

Hiring improved in the second half of 2011. In December, employers added 200,000 jobs. That marked the sixth straight month in which the economy added at least 100,000 jobs. And the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent, a three-year low.

[kimmy]

Finally the joke has a punchline. Somewhere in Texas, a village gets their idiot back.

The biggest joke to hit American politics since Christine O'Donnell got sent packing; a guy who achieved the impossible by making Sarah Palin look scholarly; a guy whose most lasting contribution to the political lexicon of our times is the phrase "uh... sorry. oops." So long, loser.

Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all said that God told them to run for president, and all three of them suffered crushing, humiliating failure. To be fair, none of them said that God told them they'd win. Perhaps God had some ulterior motive in telling these chumps to run for office, like perhaps telling morons to stop using his name in vain.

-k