VIDEO: How they play in the early states

When you point out one Democrat congressman/woman that is not rich, then your argument will have some validity. They ALL pull from the same money sources.

#2.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:15 PM EDT

Amy B. Portland, ME

Mike Michaud, Representative from Maine(D), former paper mill worker: http://michaud.house.gov/about-mike/full-biography

3 votes

#2.2 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:34 PM EDT

Maude doesn't want you to know his worth. I bet he is a Paper mill worker.

He is in congress stacking paper just like all of the rest. When he leaves I bet his butt will be the bad word RICH.

Everybody in Congress has some BS biography depicting how poor, dumb, stupid, etc they were once upon a time until they discovered a gem called politics.

#2.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:57 PM EDT

Bryan E., PA

ITM,

You asked, Amy answered. Shut up already.

All hat and no cattle = ITM.

2 votes

#2.4 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:34 PM EDT

Bryan:

No one pulled ur string jackazz.

Kick Rocks 2nd string

#2.5 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:00 PM EDT

Jody, Iowa

Not sure Perry can come back in Iowa even with the ads. The GOP here is pretty conservative but from what I've read, they aren't into another Texan, they tend to connect him with Bush 43.

12 votes

#3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:31 PM EDT

That is not conservatives connecting, those are your Liberal friends and you know it. More than likely your circle of friends is not Republican so naturally you will tend to get your information from mostly liberal entities.

BTW: Perry and Bush do not like each other. They are totally opposite. If you were from Texas you would know this. I guess you can go ask those Texans they trot out on MSNBC everynight; like they are not biased. Ask that clown Hightower (the one that Perry skull-drug).

#3.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:18 PM EDT

Bryan E., PA

Sounds like ITM has a little bro-mance for the Texas Governor. Not surprised.

1 vote

#3.2 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:37 PM EDT

Amy B. Portland, ME

President Obama is so head and shoulders above these Republican wannabbes, it's ridiculous. I truly think the GOP put up their worst candidates because they decided they really didn't want the Presidency until the economy recovers.

8 votes

#4 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:33 PM EDT

PEN-24

Amy B

It's not shocking to see how pathetic GOP field is. This is a party riddled with ideologues. Reasoning/reality are forbidden words in GOP/TP circle. They will always come up with ideas tilting towards the rich and beyond the common man.

Even if you allow GOP to rule when the economy has recovered, due to their unrealistic ideological beliefs, they'll send us back into recession. The zombies in the congress will tell you how they reason and govern.

6 votes

#4.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:03 PM EDT

chilled

"decided they really didn't want the Presidency until the economy recovers"

Amy, I think that is absolutely true. The TeaPeople have taken over what was previously the Republican Party.

They have been pushed so far to the right that by now they (Old GOP) have just given up and perhaps are just flexing (let the crazies do their thing) for 2016.

Not fielding a really credible Republican candidate is curious to say the least!

Obama/Biden 2012!

9 votes

#5 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:42 PM EDT

Amy B. Portland, ME

I'm wondering if the Republican Party has decided to "throw" the election to put the Tea Party in it's place.

As in: this is what happens when we let the far right choose the nominee.

6 votes

#5.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:49 PM EDT

Americans First-3238795

Bachmann was whining that the republican party never let them choose a candidate and always telling them to wait because the far right couldn't win. She of course in her speech thought they should pick her and prove the establishment wrong.

5 votes

#5.2 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:58 PM EDT

Actually the POTUS doesn't mean a thing if you can win a veto proof Congress. That is where the power lies.

Frankly IMO, Obama can have the position if it means regaining total control of the Congress. With re-districting coming and Republicans are already in control of most states, that should not be too hard of a task.

1 vote

#5.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:25 PM EDT

Advertise | AdChoices

NorthstarDFL

The delegate hunt will be going on into the Spring if Romney cannot wrap it up in the Florida primary.

Amy, I think you might be on to something. The GOP/TP love being the party of NO, so they can pour money into congressional races and continue their part time jobs in Congress.

9 votes

#6 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:48 PM EDT

http://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?2892-quot-Brokered-quot-Republican-convention

VETO proof congress is the way.

1 vote

#6.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:27 PM EDT

MkeMike

Don't be fooled....

The GOP big money donors will arrange for a "brokered" convention, where no candidate has enough votes to get the nomination outright, and they can draft whomever they want behind closed doors. That is the whole reason why the Koch's are financing Herman Cain, to keep Romney and Perry from getting the nomination outright. They will switch the money machine to anyone else that appears able to keep the frontrunner from getting a majority.

Once at the convention, the GOP brokers can choose an "unvetted" candidate, without all the debate baggage, as their nominee. Look for Chris Christie and Marco Rubio's names to come up again. Even Huckabee. Everything up to the convention will have just been a $h!t show. If the economy continues to improve enough by then, it won't matter who they nominate anyway, so why burn a good future candidate?

If you follow the GOP money, it's mostly going to PACs and non-candidate affiliated organizations. They will store it there until a candidate is decided upon and use it to prevent any one of the current candidates from getting the nomination.

But what are the chances of a brokered GOP convention? Not as bad as you think...

Given the current volitility of the Republican Presidential nomination contest and the fact that the Republicans are now doing the "proportionate" allocation of delegates (rather than winner takes all), I wonder whether we are going to see an intense and drawn-out battle next Spring (like the Obama-Clinton battle). Even if Perry and Romney remained the two front runners, it is possible that Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and possibly others might hang around and garner enough support to keep either Perry or Romney from wining a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season.

If the primary season ended with no candidate having a majority of the delegates, that would suggest that the Republican establishment would have a chance to "broker a convention".

In fact, such a plan already exists, according to the Daily Caller which obtained a copy from a GOP political advisor:

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/BrokeredRNCconvention.pdf

One blogger suggested this scenario:

Sure, Romney may be the odds on favourite, but I could a see a scenario where the right splits behind two or three candidates in the caucus / primary season in a way that forces a brokered convention. Is the idea of an "anyone but Romney" convention really impossible to imagine?
And then there is the matter of drafting the party platform at the convention. I could see a scenario where the radical right would want to have a sufficiently large delegate count to force the platform to go in some pretty hardcore directions -- or to have a candidate still in the game who could articulate these directions.
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2011/10/could-gop-presidential-nomination-end.html

And this from RNC chairpeople themselves:

The Republican primary schedule is still in flux, and there's time for states to try power plays that will move the map around. Based on the moves so far, though—California moving from February to June, Florida punting its timing decision to an independent committee—there will be nothing like 2008's 22-state Super Tuesday to sort of the field. Fewer states will go winner-take-all and award all of their delegates to the candidate who carries the popular vote.

"I like it, because I'd like to have a longer nomination process," explains Morton Blackwell, a member of the Republican National Committee from Virginia. "Yes, it could very well extend the period when it isn't clear who our nominee will be."

Curly Haugland, an RNC committeeman from North Dakota who sits on the rules committee, takes that one step further. "I've been spending a lot of time on this," says Haugland, "and it seems like there's no possibility for anything but a contested convention." That's fine with him. "The media and pollsters want this to be decided in primaries? Well, who gives a rip who wins New Hampshire? There's a bunch of left-leaning lunatics up there."

Slate.com outlined the possibility http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/08/next_up_the_endless_primary.2.html :

What would one of the GOP's nightmare scenarios look like? The simplest one starts with a Bachmann win in Iowa, followed (possibly, if the state sticks with a current plan) by a win in her own state's caucuses the next day. It continues with an indecisive Missouri primary, with the state punished for moving the date up. It goes on to a Mitt Romney win in New Hampshire and a too-close-for-comfort Romney-Bachmann-Perry-Paul split in the Nevada caucuses the following Saturday. Perry wins South Carolina. Romney wins Michigan. There are no surprises as we head into March. (There's no use guessing what happens in Florida yet, but if the other primaries are split, it may not be decisive.) {Note: since this writing Florida moved it's primary date up, nullifying their delegate selections in the primary}

On March 6, Super Tuesday, Romney wins the his home state and neighboring Vermont, while Perry wins his home state and neighboring Oklahoma. At this point, Perry has more delegates than Romney, but Bachmann's not out of the race yet, and neither is Paul. Paul does well in the Hawaii caucuses, Perry wins the Mississippi primary, and March ends with a slugfest in Illinois and another winnable Perry primary in Louisiana.

After that, we're mostly done with the South, and we're done with non-winner-take-all primaries. The race moves back to the Midwest, West, and East Coast. If Perry's rivals are still in the hunt, and Super PACs are still playing, then there's no obvious Republican front-runner. And that would give Republican activists more than enough motive to start showing up at state conventions and steering them to the candidates they like.

4 votes

#7 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:40 PM EDT

NorthstarDFL

MkeMike, Very interesting post.

A 'brokered convention" ?

That will really set the Tea Party hair on fire....

1 vote

#7.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:31 PM EDT

Advertise | AdChoices

Gordon Levy

You liberals out there are so easy to see through. That does not make you any more palatable. Actually you are all insufferable.You have no clue about what the Republican Party stands for and you hate the Tea Party Patriots because they might make you THINK (God forbid). You actually seem to want Barak Hussein Obam to destroy the America we all know and still love. Why is that? No, seriously, I am asking: why is that?

The Occupy Wall Street, and Occupy Atlanta Georgia, etc, etc, are the stuff that housewives sweep up on a dust pan when cleaning the garage. We tolerate it only until we can sweep it up and throw it away.

1 vote

#8 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:43 PM EDT

Gordon,

I can tell you why it is. They have a misconception of the word GREED.

They associate greed with businesses who make money providing products and services they all want and need and willingly participate in purchasing. And these people/businesses wanting to keep as much of the proceeds of their work and risk is labeled GREED.

But they cannot associate GREED with people who vote for a candidate and party based on the idea of how much this party will take from businesses and GIVE to them. They base their support of a party solely on what is in it for them, not taking into account that their party will just take it from someone else.

I contend the later is the better definition of the word GREED.

ABO 2012

3 votes

#8.1 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:58 PM EDT

What planet do you live on, dsdsherm?

#8.2 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:49 PM EDT

Jack,

That is the best comeback to the comments I made? Then obviously what I outline above is the truth, as you have nothing intelligent to say to argue against it. And the OWS crowd only proves this to be true and the embrace from the Libs for the OWS crowd re-enforces it.

But I will play your game and continue the stupid parade.

You should know what planet I am on, as one of your party Idols invented the internet. Just ask Al Gore how far his internet will reach, and then figure out what planets that range covers. I obviously must have internet access to post.

Is that a dumb enough answer to your equally stupid question?

ABO 2012

1 vote

#8.3 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:58 PM EDT

dsdsherm,

I asked the question because the views you expressed don't match those of anyone I've ever met. Ergo. . . .

2 votes

#8.4 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 PM EDT

Jack,

Why, because they actually make sense? Maybe you need to meet some new people.....

ABO 2012

#8.5 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:06 PM EDT

dsdsherm,

Your views are an interpolation of what people have said, not what they actually said.

2 votes

#8.6 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:13 PM EDT

Jack,

My views are based in reality. The entire OWS protests are about wanting the government to take the percieved excessive success from the successfull and give it to the less successfull. Top Democrats have said they understand and support these people. And the party continues to demonize the top 1% of wage earners in the US as not paying their fair share, when in fact they pay WAY more than their "Fair" share. So in essense the OWS crowd supports and align with the Dem party, as the Dem party wants to take from those that earned the money to give it to those who didnt in the form of programs, assistance, loan forgiveness, etc.

So I go back to my original point. Which is more greedy?

To make and sell goods and services in a free market competitive system, when no one is forcing anyone to consume these goods, and expect to be able to keep the and equal amount of the proceeds from your labor as the rest of the population

To support a polical party based on the assumption that if they are in power they will take a larger percentage of money from the above group and distribute it to you and others like you?

How is this an interpolation of what people said? It is an observation of reality.

And if you dont know others who feel this way, you obviously only allow those who align with your political thinking to be around you.

And you abviously cannot argue the position, as there is nothing in it that does not reflect fact.

OWS is a direct result of BHO's constant whining and wailign about the top earners not paying their fair share. Nevermind that this argument is not factual based on federal income tax reciepts. But OWS picks up on this and stages protests to protest what these top earners are making. Because they want some of it. And they dont want to pay their student loans (which no one forced them to get). And they cant get a job (because the economy sucks due to the burdens of things such as Obamacare hanging over the business world).

So they support a party that will take some of this money from others to benefit their cause. And BHO has already started to do so. Student loan payment reduction and forgiveness(default) after so many years? Who will pay this? Obviously it will come from the taxes on the rich. What ever happened to personal responsibility? After all, no one is forcing them to take these loans. They do it of their own free will. If they get an education in a filed that pays enough and is in demand, they can expect to pay it back. But many do not. They get a degree in some obscure filed there is no demand for. Then they whine they cant get a job and have to pay back a loan they were ill advised to take based on their desired course of study. But BHO and his party will fix it for them. Robbin Hood to the rescue.

And in exchange for this, the greedy people of OWS will support the Dems. Because this is the TRUE definition of GREED. They want more than they need or deserve based on their contribution. Contribute little and want more.

I rest my case

ABO 2012

#8.7 - Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:50 PM EDT

dsdsherm,

Don't be offended (or do--it's your call), but watching the World Series was a more productive use of my time last night than answering your blather.

You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to your facts.

They associate greed with businesses who make money providing products and services they all want and need and willingly participate in purchasing. And these people/businesses wanting to keep as much of the proceeds of their work and risk is labeled GREED.

That's your opinion; it's not a fact. When we speak of greed we're talking about the "over the top" salaries and bonuses of the CEOs of corporations who lay off workers and cut benefits--even if the corporation is failing. Not atypically, the (paid) board of directors of these corporations are CEOs or retired CEOs of other corporations. It's the "old boy network" in full bloom. Meanwhile, the stockholders--the people who invest in those corporations--have no say in the matter of salaries and bonuses. Ultimately, it's about power--who has it and who doesn't. Money is a by-product.

Here's another of your hyperbolic accusations:

OWS is a direct result of BHO's constant whining and wailign about the top earners not paying their fair share.

The OWS folks got there all by themselves. For you to state otherwise is not only insulting to them, it is a gross misreading of what is happening in this country. OWS is not going away. The powerful in this country are doing all they can to demean them. They say OWS is a "mob" and doesn't have a coherent message. There may be different messages coming out of OWS, but intuitively the protesters would agree on one thing: they don't want this country to become another Brazil. And that's where we're headed.

The Right likes to say that the Left isn't patriotic. But the Left loves this country and wants to stop its slide into a country of "haves" and "have nots". The powerful in this country could care less about patriotism; to them, its merely a rhetorical tool to retain their power.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. I would argue that people who choose greed over community are not patriots.

Have a nice day, dsdsherm.

#8.8 - Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:53 AM EDT