Iowa Republican Debate

[Professor S]

Now THIS is what I call a debate. Pawlenty and Gingrich are feisty, I think Bachmann has a migraine, Santorum is almost in full theocrat mode, and Ron Paul is in FULL conspiracy mode. Awesome.

And Romney is looking very Presidential.

[Bond]

Are you serious on the Bachmann migraine comment? I think she has one too: late to the stage after the break and early to leave the stage once a break was announced.

My feeling is this race is between Romney and Perry. Agreed?

[KillerGremlin]

Ron Paul can conspiracy my theory any day of the week. <3

[Bond]

Rick Santorum sucks cock.

[Professor S]

As I have stated before, Rick Santorum is a theocratic fascist. He makes no delineation between the government and society. He doesn't believe in the rule of law, and he only values the Constitution when it suits his purposes, shown by his ridiculous statements about 10th Amendment essentially not applying in cases where he doesn't like it (like gay marriage). He believes the government should be the moral watchdog of the people, and this makes him just as much a threat to individual liberty as any top-down, central-control promoting leftist. But to be fair, he probably gained ground last night by appealing to the social and security conservative bases. But at this point it may be too little too late.

Thoughts:

- I loved the format of the debate. FINALLY candidates were asked to respond to one another and pushed beyond talking point. This is good for discourse and elections.

- Huntsman is milquetoast. Utterly unimpressed with him. He ran away from his past statements, and retreated to his talking points in a debate that (thankfully) promoted engagement and discussion.

- Herman Cain did better, but he came off as a student and not a leader. That's not bad, but its not presidential. At this point he's shooting for an economic cabinet position, and I think he'd perform well in that role.

- I was serious when I said I thought Bachmann has a migraine. She seemed off of her game, and I'm not a fan of the game in the first place. She was hurt badly in this debate, regardless of what pundits say. Pawlenty and Gingrich hurt her credibility with their attacks on her effectiveness as a leader and her lack of real accomplishment.

- The other shoe finally dropped for Ron Paul, as I imagined it would. I think people went with him on Afghanistan, but once his foreign policy turned to Iran, he went off the rails. Isolationist is one thing, but ignoring reality is another. Santorum thumped him on that issue. Also, Paul missed a golden opportunity to crush Santorum when he said "We are a nation of values" by rebutting "Yes, but we are a government of LAWS." In the end, Paul is always a non-factor because he only appeals to fiscal conservatives, and pushes away security and social conservatives.

- Pawlenty hurt Bachmann, but I don't know if he helped himself. he stayed still, and that will be enough to end his candidacy. Perhaps a VP candidate, though.

- Gingrich, aside from being acerbic, came off very well. He was the only candidate that showed he could accomplish conservative policy in a split government. As usual, he also came across as being very knowledgeable and accomplished. I think it anyone made a huge improvement for themselves in this debate, it was Gingrich.

- Romney was presidential, and in a very Ronald Reagan way. He was great at dismissing challenges, to his record, many of them valid, with humor.

[Bond]

11th Circuit Appeals Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional: http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-...171829777.html

A ruling by the Supreme Court should come down just in time for the 2012 election.

[Dylflon]

Saw a little bit of this. I thought it was sweet when Ron Paul spoke out against war spending.

Then he came in second for the straw poll and the media proceeded to never mention him as a major contender.

Also, Bachmann as your president is a deeply disturbing thougt. The time for leadership by evangelicals should be over forever.

[Bond]

Gotta love this:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a retreat after an hours-long test of wills Wednesday, President Barack Obama agreed to deliver an address on jobs and the economy to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 8, yielding to House Speaker John Boehner, who had balked at Obama's request for a Sept. 7 speech.

Obama's address still gives him a grand stage to unveil his economic agenda, but it will compete with the opening game of the National Football League season — a conflict the White House wanted to avoid.

Source: Yahoo News

Clearly everyone knows America's team, the Green Bay Packers, will draw a wider audience than the president.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

Gotta love this:

Clearly everyone knows America's team, the Green Bay Packers, will draw a wider audience than the president.

I know I'll be watching. I have three players from Green Bay on various fantasy teams.

The address to a joint session of congress is absurd, and knowing Pres. Obama's track record, there is only one reason: To cast blame on the opposition while they are sitting there and can't say anything. He has done this so many times in three years.

Why does this have to be addressed to a joint session? Why can't a plan be produced prior to the speech? Why has it taken two years for another plan to come out after the first one failed? Is anyone still listening? (we'll know with the ratings)

And most importantly: WHY DO POLITICIANS CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THEY CAN CREATE JOBS????

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I know I'll be watching. I have three players from Green Bay on various fantasy teams.

The address to a joint session of congress is absurd, and knowing Pres. Obama's track record, there is only one reason: To cast blame on the opposition while they are sitting there and can't say anything. He has done this so many times in three years.

Why does this have to be addressed to a joint session? Why can't a plan be produced prior to the speech? Why has it taken two years for another plan to come out after the first one failed? Is anyone still listening? (we'll know with the ratings)

And most importantly: WHY DO POLITICIANS CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THEY CAN CREATE JOBS????

You're right, I'm sure he will try to shame the Republicans because he always does. But they've fillibustered just about every significant piece of legislation he's tried to pass - even when they had outstanding support with the general public. So why wouldn't you, when you know you're going to have a supportive audience?

I'm frustrated with Obama, but he at least gives the impression that he's trying. The American public is starved for effective politicians that have the nations interests at heart vs. their own. Obama is fantastic at publicizing himself when his interests coincide with those of popular opinion and keeping his head down when they don't. But like all politicians, he doesn't care what we want or think is right - except to further his own undisclosed goals.

But really, many of the things he's instituted have had (preliminarily) positive results. It might be a bit early, but S&P reported just two weeks ago that Medicare spending has slowed down considerably (lowest growth rate in 6 years), aside from that cancer rates are down and many people who couldn't get health insurance now can. Working in a clinic, we're definitely noticing a positive shift with all of the preventative health services we're now required to offer.

I guess what I hear is a lot of complaining without any solutions or suggestions. What do you think the president should be doing? What would/could conservatives do better?

My bigger question, though, is what Republicans are bringing to the table aside from more corporate tax breaks, easier ways of donating to politicians anonymously, and lowering the minimum wage? Or how about the general lack of understanding or willingness to accept scientifically proven ideologies?

I realize not all Republicans fall into this stereotype, but the party just feels deeply steeped in controversy and self-serving politics and I have a very hard time taking them seriously. I'm not saying I'm impressed with Democrats. If it were up to me, we'd revamp our Government and make serious improvements to the voting system. But how do we make the most with the people we have?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

You're right, I'm sure he will try to shame the Republicans because he always does. But they've fillibustered just about every significant piece of legislation he's tried to pass - even when they had outstanding support with the general public. So why wouldn't you, when you know you're going to have a supportive audience?

And the Democratic led Senate has blocked everything the Republicans have tried to pass since winning the House, and Pres. Obama has threatened to veto just about everything even if it did pass. They're both blocking one another because they're about 1 million miles apart.

I'm frustrated with Obama, but he at least gives the impression that he's trying. The American public is starved for effective politicians that have the nations interests at heart vs. their own. Obama is fantastic at publicizing himself when his interests coincide with those of popular opinion and keeping his head down when they don't. But like all politicians, he doesn't care what we want or think is right - except to further his own undisclosed goals.

Agreed, and that is a trait I definitely do not want as a President.

But really, many of the things he's instituted have had (preliminarily) positive results. It might be a bit early, but S&P reported just two weeks ago that Medicare spending has slowed down considerably (lowest growth rate in 6 years), aside from that cancer rates are down and many people who couldn't get health insurance now can. Working in a clinic, we're definitely noticing a positive shift with all of the preventative health services we're now required to offer.

There are a ton of red herrings in that argument, mostly that the main part of Obamacare doesn't hit for another few years. But hey, if it works it works, I just happen to think it won't. We'll find out.

I guess what I hear is a lot of complaining without any solutions or suggestions. What do you think the president should be doing?

For starters, how about passing a budget? He presented one budget to the Senate and then when all members voted against it (including his own party) he took his ball and went home. We are now approaching 900 days without a budget and he has provided zero leadership. All he has managed to do it take shots at any Republican who dares try and provide a solution. That is not a leader. That is a politician, and a bad one at that.

What would/could conservatives do better?

Understand that government does not create jobs, spending as stimulus destined to fail, and the Fed can't generate wealth. Those three things could

My bigger question, though, is what Republicans are bringing to the table aside from more corporate tax breaks, easier ways of donating to politicians anonymously, and lowering the minimum wage? Or how about the general lack of understanding or willingness to accept scientifically proven ideologies?

Well at least you make a fair assessment...

Please specify your "scientifically proven ideologies", and I hope you're not referring to Keynesian economics... So far these scientifically proven methods have led to one of the slowest recession recoveries in history.

I realize not all Republicans fall into this stereotype, but the party just feels deeply steeped in controversy and self-serving politics and I have a very hard time taking them seriously. I'm not saying I'm impressed with Democrats. If it were up to me, we'd revamp our Government and make serious improvements to the voting system. But how do we make the most with the people we have?

Im not overly impressed with Republicans either. To me Perry is the Republican Obama; all style and no substance, and don't even get me started on Santorum or Bachmann. This is why I don't support a party, I support politicians who reflect my beliefs. It just so happens the 5 or so politicians I believe in are Republicans.

There just has to be a time when people reject politics over governance and pragmatism over idealism. The sad part is that I think the baby boomers will have to die off before that will happen.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

But really, many of the things he's instituted have had (preliminarily) positive results. It might be a bit early, but S&P reported just two weeks ago that Medicare spending has slowed down considerably (lowest growth rate in 6 years), aside from that cancer rates are down and many people who couldn't get health insurance now can. Working in a clinic, we're definitely noticing a positive shift with all of the preventative health services we're now required to offer.

Do you work at Mayo (just curious)? Those cost declines are probably more a short-term change than anything substantial. Costs will continue to increase as our population ages, unless there is a change to the status quo.

I guess what I hear is a lot of complaining without any solutions or suggestions. What do you think the president should be doing? What would/could conservatives do better?

He needs to focus on growing the economy, which starts with creating a predictable, and frankly boring, economic environment. Reform the tax code, lower rates, broaden the base. Lock-in everything for several years. Those things alone will drive up tax revenue far more than any tax increase on the super wealthy (also will do more to solve the deficit issue than anything else).

Or how about the general lack of understanding or willingness to accept scientifically proven ideologies?

Climate change? I'm with you, but there are bigger fish to fry with 9.2% unemployment (~15% real unemployment).

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Bond

Do you work at Mayo (just curious)? Those cost declines are probably more a short-term change than anything substantial. Costs will continue to increase as our population ages, unless there is a change to the status quo.

I do, yes (though in the context of political discussion, disregard my affiliation with Mayo). You may be right, all I'm reporting is what we've seen thusfar. But I think the benefits may be more long term than you think. The idea is that now we're forced to keep track of when patients have had important tests (Colonoscopy, Lipid Panel, PSA, Mammogram, Pap Test, etc). If we find they're due for something important, even if we're not they're primary care provider, we offer to schedule it for them. If we don't, we don't get Medicare reembursement. I realize we have a very streamlined process, and it may be a more ideal implementation than many health organizations.

He needs to focus on growing the economy, which starts with creating a predictable, and frankly boring, economic environment. Reform the tax code, lower rates, broaden the base. Lock-in everything for several years. Those things alone will drive up tax revenue far more than any tax increase on the super wealthy (also will do more to solve the deficit issue than anything else).

I only support a tax increase on the super wealthy in that it's smarter than getting rid of social services offered to the poor or raising taxes on the middle class. I don't think that it's going to solve our budget crisis at all. But when Republicans say they want 'everybody to pay their share' and that includes taxing the middle class while extending cuts for the rich, I have a problem.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

Climate change? I'm with you, but there are bigger fish to fry with 9.2% unemployment (~15% real unemployment).

Climate change has to be the really big one. There's a clear intent to deny and discredit climate change filtering down from somewhere in the Republican party. I haven't really seen much from the GOP regarding what to do about unemployment, aside from a Bachmann calling down from on high to axe the minimum wage.

I can't reconcile my social differences with the party either.

Texas is facing a huge teen pregnancy problem thanks to Rick Perry's abstinence only sex education program. He's also under fire for his crude vaginal sonogram laws he passed for the anti-abortion camp (judge just threw it out). Not to mention the $500 million he's accepted from AT&T and then surprisingly voted in favor of their merger.

Republicans are supposed to be the ones cheering for limited government. But most of them can't even agree on that. You've got the gay haters, the Christian fundamentalists who can't understand separation of church and state (or worse, Bachmann/Perry Dominionism brand crazy), people who want to continue an unconstitutional drug war (granted, some are smarter).

Republicans are only conservative when it suits them.

And I don't want this to be a bash the Republican party post, like so many of mine seem to be. Because I'm feel quite disillusioned to politicians in general. I'm not impressed with the Obama or the Democratic party as a whole, but it is socially far more progressive.

I've written several long, well worded letters to the President. I've pointed out his inconsistencies, his hypocrisy, and in several instances I voiced concerns that his actions belie his actual agenda. I never expected or received a reply.

Right now, I'm at a total loss for where my vote should go.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I do, yes (though in the context of political discussion, disregard my affiliation with Mayo). You may be right, all I'm reporting is what we've seen thusfar. But I think the benefits may be more long term than you think. The idea is that now we're forced to keep track of when patients have had important tests (Colonoscopy, Lipid Panel, PSA, Mammogram, Pap Test, etc). If we find they're due for something important, even if we're not they're primary care provider, we offer to schedule it for them. If we don't, we don't get Medicare reembursement. I realize we have a very streamlined process, and it may be a more ideal implementation than many health organizations.

I know a lot of people from Rochester (some who work at Mayo), which is why I asked.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

It's good ... fair, efficient, and increased revenue. Probably politically problematic though.

Climate change has to be the really big one. There's a clear intent to deny and discredit climate change filtering down from somewhere in the Republican party. I haven't really seen much from the GOP regarding what to do about unemployment, aside from a Bachmann calling down from on high to axe the minimum wage.

I can't reconcile my social differences with the party either.

That's fair. Unfortunately, when the Republican party sold out to the evangelicals after the Goldwater-era, that included selling out to their extreme social views. The problem is that there isn't a party that sides with most Americans: economically conservative and socially liberal.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I only support a tax increase on the super wealthy in that it's smarter than getting rid of social services offered to the poor or raising taxes on the middle class. I don't think that it's going to solve our budget crisis at all. But when Republicans say they want 'everybody to pay their share' and that includes taxing the middle class while extending cuts for the rich, I have a problem.

The progressive flat tax you guys have discussed seems quite fair.

Your full comment here shows how damaging demagoguery is to political discussion. The truth is that installing a progressive flat tax is technically a massive tax cut to the rich, and any opposing party would paint it as such. Now this is only a cut to their rate, and has nothing to do with $ paid, but it is so easy to attack anything that even remotely looks favorable to the wealthy. This is what many refer to as "class warfare".

The truth is the super rich would likely pay more with a lowered rate with few loopholes, but a complicated truth is often far more difficult to present to voters than a simple lie.