Steve

The ideologues in the race or rather the ones I believe to be are Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Cain and possibly Huntsman. The rest are politicians. The latter would more or less fall on their swords over their core ideological beliefs. Those are my guesses. I reserve the right to be wrong about some of them. Paul and Cain are the most committed I think. Cain scares me as much as Bachman does. Often businessmen can come into a campaign and make some sense initially (Perot). However, Cain gives me the impression he's a fringe right candidate who really has no idea how to run the country or what to do. Bachman speaks in plattitudes and broad strokes but has no specifics. Her main platform is pointing out what's wrong. Cain would be a divisive person not open to any sort of compromise and a president has to. Businessmen are used to being in total control with boards that rubber stamp every action. Bloomberg is one of the few that have done well but he spend the majority of his working life working for someone else. He left Saloman Brothers to start a firm when he was fairly mature. Trump never did. Perot started his firm at a young enough age where he wasn't used to being challenge as well.

You can just imagine all the governmental dark secrets he's been privy to over the years. I bet he and others thought they were serving their country and saw some of the bullsh*t that we were doing, in many cases purely for economic advantage, and thought 'this isn't right'. Here's a thought. Many of us on this forum have said America has become a quasi police state and we have lost many of our freedoms. However, have we really been free? Weren't things as bad or worse decades ago? Hoover's FBI for instance. Routinely violated everyone's privacy including those in the highest echelons of government. What abut the red scares of the '30s and '50s? Oaths required of politicians against communism and alleigience to the country? Nixon's domsetic spying and misuse of the IRS to go after his enemies. CIA sanctioned assassinations of heads of state in the '70s. Were we ever free?

A pharmacist who thwarted an attempted armed robbery inside a southwestern Michigan drug store where he was working by shooting his own gun is suing after being fired from his job. Attorneys for 36-year-old Jeremy Hoven on Wednesday released surveillance footage of the robbery attempt, which happened about 4:30 a.m. May 8 at a Walgreens in Benton Harbor. He sued last month in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, claiming wrongful termination. A copy of the footage was posted on the website of The Grand Rapids Press. Deerfield-based drugstore chain Walgreen Co. denies many of Hoven’s claims, including his assertion that he was fired over a company “non-escalation†policy. Hoven had permit to carry a concealed weapon but apparently didn’t notify his employer he was carrying a gun. http://bossip.com/454778/walgreens-pharmacist-shoots-it-out-with-bank-robbers-and-is-fired-for-bringing-own-gun-to-work-video69691/

I'm not happy with Obama's performance as President. What I want from the Republican party is to hear how things will be done if their man is in power. I know Obama's fault, I'm well aware of them. Pointing them out is restating the known. What I want is a better picture of the 'unknown' which is what will happen if Romney or Perry is President. Until then its the devil I know.

That may be more about the social life than the economy. Korea, Japan, Taiwan and even China has a number of jobs that pays more than Thailand. If you really want to make as much money as possible teaching english, the middle east trumps them all.

Americans going to Canada to find work http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/america-canada-jobs/ we'll be going to Mexico next.

HH, it also includes Obama. I'm disappointed in him as well. This is gonna be one of those lesser of two evils election that I saw in '00. Paul is the only one of the field in both parties that gets me a woody. Huntsman isn't bad. Romney has no passion and will just follow the advisors and the polls. Santorum, Perry and Bachmann or downright scary. Social conservatives scare me. I don't know enough about Pawlenty to say for sure.

I am not as angry over Neil Bush. Siblings and friends of the rich and powerful have been living on their coattails for eons. As long as their powerful siblings in office have nothing to do with it, its their own business. I'm sure there is a Kennedy somewhere living off that family's name. Interestingly enough, I have a very high opinino of Jeb Bush. I think he's the best of the lot and would make a decent candidate. Please only throw fresh veggies at me for saying that. Michelle Bachman won't see the night of day as President or even close. She's too extreme for one. Second, I don't think she has the intellecual capacity or world experience to do the job. I'm not excited about any of the leading candidates who may win the next election.

My guess for those in the '20s it was the policies of the president and his party leading up to the crash and depression that angered them. Republicans had been in power throughout the 20s. Anyway, national polls for Obama mean nada. California will go Democrat, Texas will go Republican. Thats how its going down. How he does in the key states against his opponents is what will decide the election. As I stated in a prior post. He'll lose Florida so for Obama, Ohio is vital. Second is will the Republicans field a candidate that captures the middle?

This bothers me. The military guys on this forum will tell you that even if you hate the guts of an officer, you salute the rank not the person. Same with the President. You respect the office even if you don't like the man. Joint sessions of Congress are a political show for the President. Been that way for a while. Dems gotta play the game for a Republican president as they did with Bush. I'm wary of the growing disrespect for the office. First that 'You lie' thingy that I doubt was not rehearsed. Any excuse other than a personal emergency, members of Congress should be there. Boring as it may be. Political as it may be. The state of the union has become a political event. It wasn't till Wilson I think (not sure) that the President started giving it in person. Beforehand it was written and given to Congress. Its a show as well but you show respect for the office by showing up, standing when he enters and respectfully attend. If you're not respecting the office I can't trust you if you're in. Quid pro quo. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/more-republicans-skipping-obama-jobs-speech-205144814.html More Republicans skipping Obama’s jobs speech When President Obama delivers his address on a new job-creation plan to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, he won't be speaking to a sold-out crowd. Several lawmakers are still determining whether it is worth their time to stay in Washington to hear the president, and some are already planning to skip it. Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is the latest to announce that he will not be attending, and will instead watch the speech from his office across the street. During the speech, Broun will post his comments about Obama's remarks on Twitter, a tradition he keeps during State of the Union addresses. "Dr. Broun will not be attending President Obama's joint address, but he looks forward to hearing the president's proposal for job creation," Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told The Ticket. "Dr. Broun will instead watch the speech from his office where he will host a live town hall via Twitter to interact with his constituents." Broun remained in his office during Obama's State of the Union address in January, providing his own commentary on the social networking website throughout the speech. "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism," one of Broun's tweets read. Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh was the first to announce his intentional absence last week, saying he didn't want to act as a "prop" for Obama's speech. In the upper chamber, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, told Jon Karl of ABC News that he "probably" won't show up either. "If he sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I'm so frustrated I don't think I'm going to go," DeMint told ABC News. "I can't imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached." There's also a chance that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio won't be there, but his absence would have nothing to do with politics: Rubio's mother has fallen ill after suffering a series of recent strokes. The freshman senator's schedule this week is "fluid" because of his mother's health, a spokesman from Rubio's office said.

Even its for purely political reasons, Obama could get so much public goodwill by channing the TSA functions. Republicans who complian about it would look badly because they could be painted as being for 'big brother'. Its a political no brainer for me to reign the TSA an Homeland Security in.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/al-jazeera-journalist-not-allowed-film-texas-high-164258433.html Al Jazeera journalist not allowed to film at Texas high school football game

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/now-u-postal-belly-153600714.html The U.S. Postal Service is projected to lose $11 billion this year, and it's running out of cash. Barring a bailout or massive restructuring, the Postal Service says, the organization may stop operating early next year. Approaching this problem intelligently starts with analyzing what's wrong with the USPS. And the answer, according to the New York Times, is twofold: The volume of physical mail has dropped more than 20% in the last five years and is projected to keep on dropping, thanks to vastly more efficient information delivery via the Internet The US Postal Service's compensation and benefits contracts with its employees leave it unable to reduce its costs fast enough The current situation of the organization is obviously a major problem, not just for the Postal Service, but for the country. The U.S. Postal Service employs 653,000 people, and with the national unemployment rate already running over 9%, the country can't afford to lose more jobs. Thanks to the Postal Service's generous benefits and pensions, moreover, these are "good" jobs--ones that pay employees far better than they might get from private organizations. But these jobs are one reason the U.S. Postal Service's labor costs are 80% of its total expenses, versus an average of 53% and 35% for private competitors like UPS and FedEx, respectively. And they're also the reason that the only way out of the U.S. Postal Service's current mess is to vastly restructure its operations, reducing the organization's workforce and labor costs.

Sadly, I think Congressional Republicans would have done all it can to hurt Obama politically over Libya had he gone to Congress. However, it doesn't excuse not doing the right thing constitutionally. Its sad that an event that all parties agree on would probably have been mired in political jabs and blows before anything meaningful would happen.

Foreign policy wise Obaama has done a fairly good job. It was one of the main things it was argued he'd be weak in. A lot of things are common sense. Also, nowadays Presidents have access to experts, think tanks, people who have studied certain countries, conflicts, etc. of all manner of places and just about anyone on here could make a sound decision when presented with all the facts. Libya and Egypt were no brainers. Obama did the logical thing and supported the uprisings. The election are going to be dire. Its an important one economically and it will deteriorate into a nasty political fight. My fear is either candidate won't have a clue. My fear is whoever wins makes things worse. Its not like '96 no matter who was elected, the economy was roaring and you couldn't f8ck it up if you tried. This economy is so f*cked up that the best economists are at odds. I'm not convinced that the 'typical' Republican cures for a bad economy will work. I fear they may make things worse for some people. I'm also equally unconvinced that the Dems will cut waste. Maybe even moreso. I fear no matter who wins the next 4 or more years will see us worse off. However, anything can happen. Usually its something out of the control, unforseen that sets off an economy. No one forsaw the '90s tech boom. I'm hoping something similar happens that gets us out of the mess. The one thing America still has are great minds and people willing to take risks. There is always some product, service, etc. that catches the public imagination or changes our lives in some form or fashion that ignites things. We could use such a moment now.

For me its not that a person can change things in the constitution its that they would change some things if they could. Or make some things legal or illegal that I don't agree with, even if they don't have the votes. What they believe is important, not what will or won't get passed. I'll admit to being tuned out but why dind't Obama get congressional approval for Libya? I would assume Congress would be for helping militarily without troops on the ground (save the special forces and black ops team we probably have). Was there a reason why he didn't? I do recall talk of impeachment but I don't think it had any legs.

The 'other guy sucks more' strategy has commenced. Article warning on what Rick Perry would do with the consitution. 1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. 2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. 3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. 4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. 5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. 6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. 7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/could-obama-done-differently-create-jobs-improve-economy-151029988.html What could Obama have done differently to create jobs and improve the economy? Much of the debate centers on the $787 billion stimulus, passed in February 2009, that tried to give the faltering economy a shot in the arm. Among the sometimes contradictory criticisms that have emerged are three big arguments: the stimulus failed to boost the economy; it was poorly designed; and it wasn't big enough. The notion that the stimulus failed has hardened into Republican orthodoxy, but it doesn't hold up. A study released last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that as of June, between 1 million and 2.9 million people are working who wouldn't otherwise have been, thanks to the stimulus... Perhaps it should have relied less on infrastructure projects and more on "large, quick, payroll tax cuts," as Kaus argues. President Obama has admitted that few infrastructure projects turned out to be "shovel-ready." But a payroll tax cut has been in effect since the start of the year, and as Bruce Bartlett, who served as a Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration, wrote this week, "There is no evidence that the lower payroll tax has done much of anything to stimulate either spending or hiring." The Obama administration has proposed extending the cut into next year. Republicans oppose the idea.... HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS This one's hard to argue with. When President Obama launched his program to help struggling homeowners in 2009, he said it would help 3 to 4 million borrowers to modify their mortgages. That goal now seems unreachable: As of July, only 675,447 mortgages had been permanently modified. Consumer advocates say a better-designed program--for instance, one that required mortgage companies to participate, rather than making the program voluntary--would have stood more chance of succeeding. The evidence suggests they're right. ...Right now, what's holding back the economy is a lack of demand, in the form of consumer spending. And that lack of demand stems largely from the enormous loss of housing wealth that occurred in recent years. Until the housing sector picks up, the economy as a whole will struggle. And a successful mortgage modification program could have helped quite a lot.

I could care less if a candidate believes in the tooth fairy. A person's personal faith or lack of one is their own business. What I do care about is if that person has the moral/ethical standards that the office requires. I do care if that person suppresses their religious inclination to uphold the constitutioinal they swear to abide by. And of course they are capable to do an effective job with good ideas and programs. Thats a given. An atheist can be just as good of a president as a christian, moslem, jew...and yes, mormon. I have friends of different beliefs and their beliefs has nothing to do with their being great friends. Honest, caring friends. My reticence about Romney is my lack of faith that he knows how to fix things. My fear is he may make things worse. There may be candidates with a better idea of what to do. I also think there are things the president should not do. Making the rich richer isn't one of them. Especially if there is no benefit to the rest of us. I don't buy the cut taxes to the rich because they create jobs or will create jobs this time. Cutting IBM's corporate rate signficantly won't make them hire more people I think. Maybe I am wrong on it but I think all it will do is give them more money to sit on. I think they will hire people when they sell more products. Ford will hire more people when its cars are hot sellers and expected to keep selling. Not if their taxes are cut. I don't see how someone's capital gains taxes on their trading account will increase employment. I've worked in the industry. I've never seen someone not buy a stock because the amount of taxes on the gain is too high. You make the money first then worry about the taxes. Tax consideration doesn't factor in investing into a stock you think will take off. There is also this huge contradiction in this country. People, the masses, need to save more. Our savings rate is low. We carry way too much debt as a collective. However, the government wants us to spend on the products and services of the companies in the country. We can't do both. Families shouldn't throwing out their old tv for a flat screen. They should be saving, but that's exactly whatat the government wants us to do (spend that money). We really shouldn't be trying to buy new and bigger houses and carrying a larger mortgage. If I live in a house that has a $1,000 mortgage but my promotion at work now allows me to afford a $1,500 a month mortgage should I move to a bigger house? Housing starts, new houses is a stat that is always mentioned. The government wants us to move that bigger house so that stat improves but its best that person stays in their present house and saves that increase in salary. T

If Romney wins and picks the right running mate it will be very difficult for Obama. It will be a very close tight race. Perry has charisma similar to Obama but not the intellect. Romney has good enough intellect close enough to Obama but not his charisma. Its going to be a nasty fight but I don't think nearly as nasty as Bush Gore. The problem for both parties in this election is being too nasty and turning off voters. As I said before, the wild card that isn't talked about are events that will happen between now and the election. Be they changes in the economy in one direction, domestic or foreign event. The economy getting worse obviously hurts Obama and may kill him off as it did Bush in '92. A foreign event that galvanizes the people behind the President could win it for Obama. Something will happen. The other things that aren't being talked about are the congressiona races. The congress will not look the same, that's for sure. Huntsman is the only Republican I may consider voting for besides Paul. Everyone knows the Republican heiarchy wants Romney. They will push for him. So, as I said, Romney v Obama in Penna., Ohio, Mich., and Fla. will decide the race. The whole country comes down to a handful of states. Amazing. One person who I hear my run in 2016 if Obama wins and who I aways thought would make a great president is Jeb Bush. His brother f*cked it up for him. He's moderate, smart, has good ideas and being the former governor of Florida would only have to work on Ohio. Basically he wins both those states and he's President. It sounds too simplistic but I've heard that. Its almost impossible in today's poltical world to lose BOTH Forida and Ohio and still win.

That's sad to hear. Basically, the Democrats are gonna try and out-Repbulican the Republicans. Sad there won't be a coherent and spirited debate about the real issues. Its going to be about getting or keeping power by any means necesssary. 3rd party candidates are looking better right now. Well, Obama can't sell the rosy, optimistic stuff this time around. Foreign policy are his only achievements that I can think of and the voters don't care about that. Its their wallet and the future of their wallet. Understandable. It my concern as well. So sad.

Its not just the general election but I suspect the Republicans will pick up more seats no matter who wins. I looked at Romney's economic plan and don't see anything note but a broad general ideas. No specfics. I suspect he doesn't want to put himself out there. It may come to a point where all he has to do is show up and not do anything stupid to win, if Obama keeps going down in popularity or some event happens that drives his popularity down. Obama's proposed Sept. 1st economic plan is yet to come. No matter what a given is that it will be criticized. I can't see how Obama can get anything of significance passed between now and the election. No way the Republicans will approve anything. They've learn that they can dig in their heels and it will work. Dems have criticized Obama for giving up too much and not getting much compromise back from the other side in any deals. Obama still has Wall Street and they may help him in some ways. I've read he's quietly building a war chest that could approach a billion. Unprecedented and scary. Its all a mess right now.

With black voters is not that they won't vote for Obama (or any Democrat) they will. The wild card is the turn out. Turnout was extremely high for Obama. Many new voters and even more registering. The question is black (and latino) turn out in key states: Penna., Ohio, Michigan,

Black congressional members have never liked Obama. He was not seen as one of them hence none of them endorsed him. Same with the non elected so called black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Rev Al both of whom made comments about him during the primaries. They endorsed Hillary instead and only came to him when they had no choice. There were only a few. Jesse Jackson's son and other younger black Dems, but the old guard didn't like lim. Obama in return didn't make any of them part of his administration or give them anything after. He had a long memory and remembered the slight against him. Its the black masses that have taken to him. I know some have made note of blacks voting for him only because he's black and its true. However, its true of all groups. Not excusing it but I don't see how blacks are any different than just about anyone else. If Bush could have run against Obama in '08, there are white southern Republicans who would still vote for Bush. As much as that seems incredible. Its human nature. Irish Americans voted for JFK becauuse he was one of them. That's it. Nothing more nothing else. Older dem women were voting for Hillary for similar reason. Geraldine Ferarro was the poster child of that generation. They lived for the day to see a woman president just like blacks did for one our own. Again, its human nature. Younger dem women grew up not knowing the women's right struggles so they had no problem going with Obama. Older women wanted to see their efforts a generation ago come to fruition. Obama can win. If no where close to a foregone conclusion he won't despite a large drop in popularity. Republicans have picked up seats and such but its a far cry from a national election and recent memory isn't that long ago. Republicans have a bad reputation as well and carry some negatives. Also, there is a lot of wild cards between now and the elecdtion that can go for or against him. Before the financial meltdown McCain had a chance. It was close but he had a fairly good chance. Right after it, he lost the election. His poll numbers in key states droppped. The economy could get better....or worse and if it moves a good ways in either direction, its significant. If the economy gets better voters are less likely to rock the boat. The same thinking got Clinton re-elected in '96. If the economy gets worse its probably over for Obama. The only way it won't is if the Republicans are blamed for it. Perhaps by blocking some plan for jobs or whatever. There could be some international event, something always happens that affects voters.

Always had the highest respect for Powell and if there was any person with integrity it was him. Only a few others have the same integrity as candidates. Paul has it, whether you agree with his politics or not, Huntsman seems to as well. Not sure about the rest. I thought Obama had it but he's sold out to the establishment. Maybe its not possible to be President and not be beholden. I'd like to think its possible. Compromising is part of the job but selling out is another. Interesting thing about Powell was that he was identified as a candidate to become an officer via affirmative actio and moved up in the military with the help of Republicans, hence his party affiliation and his support for AA. I agreed with his assessment of Palin. Although I was soured on the Republican party by that time, McCain's selection removed any chance of me supporting him. She was (and I think still is but not nearly as much) woefully unqualified and to some extent her selection endangered us I believe. She seemed that bad to me. I could't fathom her governing as she was back then. I think it was irresponsible of McCain. Bush had negatives as well in 2004 so its possible to win with negs. It will come down to a few states as it always does. Assuming Romney is the nominee, it will come down to which one of them wins Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. A couple other pivotal ones but those and especially Ohio and Florida. Obama's low ratings mean squat if he can win both. I think he'll lose Florida this time around. Jewish support won't be there I think. Latino support may but its a tough state for a Dem to win. Ohio is his key. He has to win there. Romney would be smart to focus on Ohio and either Penna. or Mich. I think.