PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ames Iowa Straw poll


Taco John
08-13-2011, 04:00 PM
I love the day and age we live in... It's cool that we can follow this stuff online.

Here's a Ustream link for video (http://www.ustream.tv/iowastrawpoll#utm_campaign=synclickback&source=http://theiowastrawpoll.org/&medium=9026706)



Here is the CSPAN link (http://www.c-span.org/Events/Iowa-Straw-Poll-Hosts-GOP-Candidates/10737423441-1/)

Chocolate Hog
08-13-2011, 04:16 PM
Michelle Bachmann is going to win this is an embarrassing for Paul.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 04:33 PM
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dtd5XeamNNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 04:34 PM
Michelle Bachmann is going to win this is an embarrassing for Paul.

I think if he places in top 3 he will do well. Lot of Evangelicals in Iowa I hear.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 04:36 PM
Perry entering the race today is in poor taste imo.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 04:41 PM
Perry entering the race at all is in poor taste imo.

FYP. ;)

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 04:42 PM
LMAO

Taco John
08-13-2011, 05:18 PM
Michelle Bachmann is going to win this is an embarrassing for Paul.

I don't see how it would be embarassing for Paul at all if Bachmann wins. She's the overwhemlimg favorite to win it.

Chocolate Hog
08-13-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't see how it would be embarassing for Paul at all if Bachmann wins. She's the overwhemlimg favorite to win it.

He spent the most money on the straw poll. He needed to win.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 05:43 PM
He spent the most money on the straw poll. He needed to win.

No he didn't. He needs to come in no worse than third.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 05:44 PM
As expected, Bachmann wins. I can't find word yet on the placements.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 05:51 PM
Awesome! Just got word that Ron Paul finished in second place just 200 votes behind Bachmann! That's an excellent outcome. Obviously winning would have been the better, but I never had that expectation.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 05:53 PM
Awesome! Just got word that Ron Paul finished in second place just 200 votes behind Bachmann! That's an excellent outcome. Obviously winning would have been the better, but I never had that expectation.

:thumb: PBJ

Chocolate Hog
08-13-2011, 05:55 PM
No he didn't. He needs to come in no worse than third.

Yes he spent the most money on tent location and he spent over 100K on radio ads.

mnchiefsguy
08-13-2011, 05:57 PM
Yes he spent the most money on tent location and he spent over 100K on radio ads.

100k is a drop in the bucket, really. He took it seriously and did well. But if he had placed fourth instead of second, I don't think it would have killed his campaign.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 06:01 PM
100k is a drop in the bucket, really. He took it seriously and did well. But if he had placed fourth instead of second, I don't think it would have killed his campaign.

Placing fourth would have been a blow. I didn't have any expectations he'd finish that low. I thought third would be where he came in given how much money Pawlenty spent. His campaign is going to have it tough because the only place they can get votes is from Bachmann or Mitt. As far as I'm concerned, his campaign is over.

Jenson71
08-13-2011, 06:01 PM
Less than 200 for Paul (away from first place). Not much from Pawlenty.

If you are a Paul supporter, I would think this would be good. Bachmann seems the most similar to Paul, policy-wise.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 06:04 PM
Awesome! Just got word that Ron Paul finished in second place just 200 votes behind Bachmann! That's an excellent outcome. Obviously winning would have been the better, but I never had that expectation.

That is a very good showing.

Direckshun
08-13-2011, 06:04 PM
How do you guys think Rick Perry's going to affect this?

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 06:05 PM
Less than 200 for Paul. Not much from Pawlenty.

If you are a Paul supporter, I would think this would be good. Bachmann seems the most similar to Paul, policy-wise.

Domestically — yes. She reads Mises. The only one of the others who I think would make a sincere effort to correct fiscal matters and repeal Obamacare and his other spending spree. But she's on the Iran has a nuke bandwagon, unfortunately.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 06:06 PM
How do you guys think Rick Perry's going to affect this?

We'll let ya' know when we see how it plays out. We don't have crystal balls.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 06:07 PM
We'll let ya' know when we see how it plays out. We don't have crystal balls.

Mine are Iron. :p

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 06:10 PM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9GetaQbmuig?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9GetaQbmuig?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

healthpellets
08-13-2011, 06:15 PM
How do you guys think Rick Perry's going to affect this?

wouldn't he split the crazy evangelical vote with Bachmann leaving all the normal people for Mr. Paul?

Jenson71
08-13-2011, 06:17 PM
wouldn't he split the crazy evangelical vote with Bachmann leaving all the normal people for Mr. Paul?

No. Emphatically, no.

healthpellets
08-13-2011, 06:21 PM
No. Emphatically, no.

No, as in my statement is incorrect.

Or no, as in you consider yourself a normal person that won't vote for Mr. Paul?

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 06:23 PM
wouldn't he split the crazy evangelical vote with Bachmann leaving all the normal people for Mr. Paul?

I do think he will dilute the overall Establishment vote. I think he'd take more away from Romney though—who is just too liberal.

mnchiefsguy
08-13-2011, 06:35 PM
Rick Perry beat Romney, that is a bit surprising.

orange
08-13-2011, 06:39 PM
We'll let ya' know when we see how it plays out. We don't have crystal balls.

But you definitely have tea leaves. What are they telling you?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 06:50 PM
Rick Perry beat Romney, that is a bit surprising.

corporations are people too!

Mojo Jojo
08-13-2011, 06:54 PM
Let's face it the Iowa Straw poll since it started has only twice picked the GOP nominee and that was Bob Dole (who tied with Phil Gramm) and GW. This is like NFL preseason...it means nothing.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 07:09 PM
But you definitely have tea leaves. What are they telling you?

I am not a fortune-teller is what I should have said, I guess!
I am a little tea-pot though.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 07:11 PM
Rick Perry beat Romney, that is a bit surprising.

Why? Perry is more conservative than Romney.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 07:11 PM
Let's face it the Iowa Straw poll since it started has only twice picked the GOP nominee and that was Bob Dole (who tied with Phil Gramm) and GW. This is like NFL preseason...it means nothing.

Only a matter of time when someone would bring this up. My wait is ovah!

orange
08-13-2011, 07:15 PM
Only a matter of time when someone would bring this up. My wait is ovah!

It's become a mantra for Pawlenty fans... if you can find any.

alnorth
08-13-2011, 07:26 PM
Just got back from Ames. When I walked to Hilton I was completely dumbstruck by the massive Ron Paul turnout around his tent complex. (most candidates had one tent, Ron Paul had 2 or 3 of them) Huge spillover crowds of at least one or two thousand stretching far from his stage into the grass and up the hill when he spoke outside before going into the coliseum. His crowd was passionately anti-war, it easily got the biggest roar and applause every time he talked about ending the wars. I was thinking he'd easily win until I went to the other side of Hilton and saw Bachmann's huge tent with a roughly equally huge number of followers.

It was pretty clear by noon just by looking around that it was going to be extremely close with Paul/Bachmann blowing everyone else out of the water.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-13-2011, 08:22 PM
Rep. Michele Bachmann Wins GOP Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul Places Second Despite Attempted Media Sabatoge

Michele Bachmann Wins The GOP Ames, Iowa Straw Poll With Ron Paul Coming In Second After Supporters From Both Campaigns Claim They Were Deliberately Sabotaged By The Media

The final results of The GOP Ames, Iowa Straw Poll:

Candidate Votes
Bachmann 4823
Paul 4671
Pawlenty 2293
Santorum 1657
Cain 1456
Perry (Write-in)718
Romney 567
Gingrich 385
Huntsman 69
McCotter 35

Earlier the media began to downplay the importance of the Ames, Iowa straw poll even though the results of the poll will serve to eliminate some candidates while spring boarding the campaigns of others.

Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann supporters immediately criticized the reports claiming the downplaying of the poll came only after the it became clear that Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann appeared likely to win the straw poll.

Paul supporters further point out that both by C-SPAN and Fox News cut off TV interviews in the middle of Dr. Paul answering questions.

Fox News also failed to report Dr. Paul won a Iowa Debate poll that was highly hyped on the news channel in prime time last night. Fox is now now running another poll for the debate, apparently hoping for different results.

U.S news also drew criticism from the Paul campaign after failing to list Ron Paul as a candidate in their poll include Ron Paul. Despite Ron Paul’s’ name not being on the poll, the over 54% of the participants voted for “other”. Mitt Romney captured the next largest share of votes.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/us_news_hides_ron_paul.jpg

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/13/ames-iowa-gop-straw-poll-results-anounced-winner-55061/

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 08:36 PM
His crowd was passionately anti-war, it easily got the biggest roar and applause every time he talked about ending the wars.

If I was there, I'd have been one of those.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 08:43 PM
Rep. Michele Bachmann Wins GOP Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul Places Second Despite Attempted Media Sabatoge

Yuck! Yuck! Yuck! Wonder what it would have been if there was NONE of THAT?


Paul supporters further point out that both by C-SPAN and Fox News cut off TV interviews in the middle of Dr. Paul answering questions.
Even C-Span? Wow! I expect this of that Foxy network.

Fox News also failed to report Dr. Paul won a Iowa Debate poll that was highly hyped on the news channel in prime time last night. Fox is now now running another poll for the debate, apparently hoping for different results.
ROFL I was told they took the first one down.
I wonder if the second one will be rigged?
I voted in the first one and there was a mechanism to prevent voting more than once being counted.

U.S news also drew criticism from the Paul campaign after failing to list Ron Paul as a candidate in their poll include Ron Paul. Despite Ron Paul’s’ name not being on the poll, the over 54% of the participants voted for “other”. Mitt Romney captured the next largest share of votes.
ROFL

But, but, but Ron Paul is unelectable! If he is then why all the blackouts and removal of polls (FOX) and not reporting where he placed (CNN) Is his message too popular? It would seem so. But there's Bachmann's camp to deal with who are pro-war!


Where do you get all this stuff?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 08:51 PM
Let's face it the Iowa Straw poll since it started has only twice picked the GOP nominee and that was Bob Dole (who tied with Phil Gramm) and GW. This is like NFL preseason...it means nothing.

Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com said it best when he said, "the big question won’t be what this means, but if it means anything at all."

Jenson71
08-13-2011, 08:58 PM
Rick Perry beat Romney, that is a bit surprising.

Romney didn't participate.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 09:04 PM
According to this article Romney did participate but did not invest in it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/ames-straw-poll_n_924828.html

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 09:05 PM
Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com said it best when he said, "the big question won’t be what this means, but if it means anything at all."

:LOL: So why the blackouts and the false reporting and removal of polls?


Skeer'dy chickenhawks!

Chocolate Hog
08-13-2011, 09:06 PM
Just got back from Ames. When I walked to Hilton I was completely dumbstruck by the massive Ron Paul turnout around his tent complex. (most candidates had one tent, Ron Paul had 2 or 3 of them) Huge spillover crowds of at least one or two thousand stretching far from his stage into the grass and up the hill when he spoke outside before going into the coliseum. His crowd was passionately anti-war, it easily got the biggest roar and applause every time he talked about ending the wars. I was thinking he'd easily win until I went to the other side of Hilton and saw Bachmann's huge tent with a roughly equally huge number of followers.

It was pretty clear by noon just by looking around that it was going to be extremely close with Paul/Bachmann blowing everyone else out of the water.


It helped Bachmann had Randy Travis at her tent and gave away free tickets. You had to pay Paul 10 for a ticket.

healthpellets
08-13-2011, 09:37 PM
It helped Bachmann had Randy Travis at her tent and gave away free tickets. You had to pay Paul 10 for a ticket.

At least you didn't have to rob Peter...

alnorth
08-13-2011, 09:38 PM
Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com said it best when he said, "the big question won’t be what this means, but if it means anything at all."

This whole line is obviously nonsense, if you are looking only at the winner and how to project their chances, and nothing else.

As another writer put it cleverly, the straw poll is a crazy carnival that kills campaigns. It isn't supposed to crown a winner for Iowa delegates, the Iowa caucus does that. It is supposed to demoralize supporters of failed candidates who needed to demonstrate strength but failed, drying up their donor support and gracefully letting them exit early so they don't clutter the debate when it gets serious.

This was not a coronation of Paul and Bachmann (though they are both now players), what it did was murder the campaigns of Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, and all the little-known guys who contested it. They may not all quit, but their support will dry up and they will be ignored. If Paul would have finished 4th, he would have been completely done with no one caring but his small cadre of college volunteers. If Bachmann would have finished somewhere closer to a distant 3rd like Pawlenty, Perry would have easily taken her out by grabbing a lot of her financial supporters, who now with an Ames win may be inclined to stick it out and fund her fight with Perry for the evangelicals.

What the straw poll accomplished is weeding out this cumbersome 9-person field, where you couldn't dismiss someone like Cain because hey no one knows yet, down to a more manageable final 4 (including Perry and Romney).

patteeu
08-13-2011, 10:16 PM
This whole line is obviously nonsense, if you are looking only at the winner and how to project their chances, and nothing else.

As another writer put it cleverly, the straw poll is a crazy carnival that kills campaigns. It isn't supposed to crown a winner for Iowa delegates, the Iowa caucus does that. It is supposed to demoralize supporters of failed candidates who needed to demonstrate strength but failed, drying up their donor support and gracefully letting them exit early so they don't clutter the debate when it gets serious.

This was not a coronation of Paul and Bachmann (though they are both now players), what it did was murder the campaigns of Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, and all the little-known guys who contested it. They may not all quit, but their support will dry up and they will be ignored. If Paul would have finished 4th, he would have been completely done with no one caring but his small cadre of college volunteers. If Bachmann would have finished somewhere closer to a distant 3rd like Pawlenty, Perry would have easily taken her out by grabbing a lot of her financial supporters, who now with an Ames win may be inclined to stick it out and fund her fight with Perry for the evangelicals.

What the straw poll accomplished is weeding out this cumbersome 9-person field, where you couldn't dismiss someone like Cain because hey no one knows yet, down to a more manageable final 4 (including Perry and Romney).

LOL if you're saying Ron Paul is in some kind of serious final four. If it's down to Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Paul, it's really a two horse race for the nomination. I'm not sure the field is really winnowed to that extent by this straw poll though.

FWIW, Morrissey made the same point that you do about how this contest is somewhat meaningful in terms of hurting the candidates that did poorly. He was just expressing skepticism about whether there was any meaning for the ones who came out on top.

alnorth
08-13-2011, 10:29 PM
LOL if you're saying Ron Paul is in some kind of serious final four. If it's down to Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Paul, it's really a two horse race for the nomination. I'm not sure the field is really winnowed to that extent by this straw poll though.

FWIW, Morrissey made the same point that you do about how this contest is somewhat meaningful in terms of hurting the candidates that did poorly. He was just expressing skepticism about whether there was any meaning for the ones who came out on top.

The Ron Paul crowd wasn't all college students like it basically was 4 years ago, it trended (to my surprise) a whole lot older than one would think.

His young hard-core volunteers are about the same as 4 years ago, but 4 years ago he finished 4th with barely more than 1,000 voters. He quadrupled that this year, skunked Pawlenty, and racked up the 4th-highest vote total in straw poll history. That isn't nothing.

I'm not going out on a limb and saying he'll win the nomination because he has obvious problems (he is very old for starters, and his speeches could be a tad smoother)

He is clearly expanding his base, and I think a lot of it is coming from evangelicals. He's obviously learned from 2008 that this is the crowd we got here in Iowa, this isn't northeast or california republicans. You can't do much in Iowa without making a play for religious voters, which is why he led off his speech with, not wars or the fed, but a very moving story about witnessing an abortion as a medical student to polish his pro-life credentials. If he appears to be viable and if Romney is beaten down by the time the early states are done, who knows how well Ron Paul might do in, say New York and California.

Also, its not like Perry is going to cannibalize Ron Paul voters, its the other way around with Ron Paul having his people solidly in his pocket and trying to round up anyone else who isn't reflexively pro-war. He's going to do a lot better this time than he did in 2008.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 11:42 PM
How do you guys think Rick Perry's going to affect this?


I think Rick Perry is the favorite at this point. He's charismatic, and is going to suck all of the oxygen out of the room for Mitt. Romney doesn't stand a chance in a debate that has Perry in it. He'll look incredibly small by comparison.

Taco John
08-13-2011, 11:56 PM
LOL if you're saying Ron Paul is in some kind of serious final four. If it's down to Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Paul, it's really a two horse race for the nomination. I'm not sure the field is really winnowed to that extent by this straw poll though.

FWIW, Morrissey made the same point that you do about how this contest is somewhat meaningful in terms of hurting the candidates that did poorly. He was just expressing skepticism about whether there was any meaning for the ones who came out on top.

I think it's down to a three horse race: Bachmann, Perry, and Paul. Mitt Romney is meaningless at this point. His candidacy unofficially ended when Perry entered the race. I don't think Paul will win - I'm pretty certain Perry will take the nomination, but I do think Paul will remain a wildcard up to the end.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 12:05 AM
Another thing that wont be reported but that I think might have been meaningful in swaying maybe a few hundred votes towards Bachmann and Paul if anyone was at all unsure or undecided: a prominent Iowa gun rights group (not the NRA, unknown outside Iowa, pretty well known within Iowa in the gun rights crowd) was out in force near the entrance, handing out flyers grading all the candidates (other than Perry, who wasnt on the ballot) based on a survey they sent to all the campaigns. (the guy who was near me had a funny and attention-grabbing pitch: "lots of gun-grabbers in the straw poll, found out who they are here!")

Only Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul answered the survey in such a way that got them prominently featured at the top with an A grade. Mitt Romney and some other guy got D's I think, and everyone else got an F for either answering incorrectly, or stupidly refusing to answer and sending the survey back, maybe thinking this group was nothing to care about.

I saw tons of people who presumably cared about gun rights walking in grab the survey and look through it. If they weren't for Bachmann or Paul when they drove in, they may have been when they voted.

Bewbies
08-14-2011, 12:27 AM
Is Bachmann more popular because she was born in Iowa? I heard that today and thought that her popularity there is probably higher because of that....

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:33 AM
She was born in the home of John Wayne!


(Gacy)

alnorth
08-14-2011, 12:52 AM
Is Bachmann more popular because she was born in Iowa? I heard that today and thought that her popularity there is probably higher because of that....

Iowa Republicans are disproportionately more "evangelical/holy roller" (with maybe a slight touch of isolationist anti-war sentiment if it ever becomes an issue) than the GOP in the rest of the country. I don't think Bachmann got a bump from being a "favored daughter", she's obviously, pre-Perry, the most evangelical candidate on the ballot. She's now a politician in another state, and isn't really thought of as an Iowan.

Thats just the way it is in Iowa, and its why that retard preacher Huckaboom, otherwise known as Mike Huckabee, won in Iowa last time. Ron Paul didn't lead off his Ames speech with abortion instead of wars or monetary policy for no reason, he knows what he has to do to get votes here.

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 01:13 AM
Sounds to me like the two biggest tents won.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:22 AM
Sounds to me like the two biggest tents won.

That may be true, but I think its more likely that the Romney campain knew it couldn't compete against Bachmann, and everyone knew this would probably be Bachmann vs Paul, so shelling out more money for a bigger tent would be a waste.

Its a chicken or egg problem, did they finish top 2 because of the tent, or did they buy the tents because they knew they were the contenders and each of the 2 biggest campaigns was trying to beat the other? I think its the latter because most voters know who they will vote for before they arrive to even see the tents.

Taco John
08-14-2011, 01:33 AM
LOL!

http://i.imgur.com/mZMuS.png

orange
08-14-2011, 02:08 AM
LOL!


Okay, it's obvious they're doing that deliberately now to poke you guys. What else could it be? ;)


Here's the way one liberal commentator sees it (standard HuffPo warnings apply):

Howard Fineman: Impressions On Ames Results
With the announcement of the Ames Straw Poll results, I drew the following conclusions:


Bye-bye T-Paw
Perry as a last-minute write-in bests a weak Mitt
Combination of Bachmann and Paul strength will generate more questions about the wisdom of doing a straw poll at all
Newt, with 385 votes, needs to drop out
Santorum is in danger with a fourth place finish in a state where evangelicals matter so much
Romney supporters argue that this will help Mitt by pitting Perry against Bachmann for the evangelical/Tea Party vote

Ron Paul is about to become a MAJOR headache for the GOP

-- Howard Fineman

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 02:23 AM
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6641/639409346386015.jpg

"When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis

Chocolate Hog
08-14-2011, 02:53 AM
Bachmann won because Randy Travis played at her tent. She handed out 6,000 tickets and got over 4,000 votes.

go bowe
08-14-2011, 02:58 AM
Bachmann won because Randy Travis played at her tent. She handed out 6,000 tickets and got over 4,000 votes.

who'd you vote for?

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 07:12 AM
Rick Perry beat Romney, that is a bit surprising.

Rick Perry or Rick Parry?

EDIT: ROFL had another embed link of the actual commercial, but apparently Viacom has claimed IP ownership of a commercial ostensibly from Colbert's independent SuperPAC.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com'>The Colbert Report</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394521/august-11-2011/colbert-super-pac---confused-by-rick-parry-with-an--a--for-america'>Colbert Super PAC - Confused by Rick Parry with an "A" for America</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/'>www.colbertnation.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394521' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video'>Video Archive</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 08:13 AM
Bachmann won because Randy Travis played at her tent. She handed out 6,000 tickets and got over 4,000 votes.

I read that 20% who got them didn't even use them too. I wonder who they went for?

patteeu
08-14-2011, 08:44 AM
"When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis

Is there something about Perry that makes you fear fascism or did you just think the caption matched the picture in a more generic way?

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 08:59 AM
I read Perry has had closed meetings with the former Joint Chiefs Chairman Pace and Art Laugher over the past few weeks. I also found out last night reading that Laugher considers himself a liberal who came up with his curve theory to raise funds for liberal programs.

Looks like the NeoCons are already getting their hooks into another conservative. Including:
Perry made a pledge to a foreign govt, Israel, to the point of wanting some American citizens prosecuted as criminals and terrorists for a protest against the blockade of Gaza.

There WILL be a war with Iran if Perry wins and BIGGER deficits to pay for it too.

NB: When I first went to work for Ron Paul, at the end of the Carter administration, I was able to sneak into a Members Only Briefing with Ron to hear Art Laffer. He identified himself as a liberal Democrat who wanted to increase the government's income for social welfare spending, and thus his Curve. As usual, Rothbard was right.~ Bob Wenzel (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/08/rick-perry-and-art-laffer/)

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 09:03 AM
According to Perry's university transcript, he earned 20 B's, 27 C's, and 9 D's. A's and F's were rare.[13] Additionally, Perry was placed on academic probation for his poor performance in school.

Sounds like the challenges to Perry will be the same ones Bush got.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

patteeu
08-14-2011, 09:05 AM
I read Perry has had closed meetings with the former Joint Chiefs Chairman Pace and Art Laugher over the past few weeks. I also found out last night reading that Laugher considers himself a liberal who came up with his curve theory to raise funds for liberal programs.

Looks like the NeoCons are already getting their hooks into another conservative. Including:
Perry made a pledge to a foreign govt, Israel, to the point of wanting some American citizens prosecuted as criminals and terrorists for a protest against the blockade of Gaza.

There WILL be a war with Iran if Perry wins and BIGGER deficits to pay for it too.

Who cares whether Laffer is a liberal or not? He's not running for office and it's not like his curve is a liberal idea. It's math.

If Perry wants to look into prosecuting Americans who participated in the efforts to clash with Israel's blockade, it moves him up a notch on my scale. Thanks for the tip.

patteeu
08-14-2011, 09:06 AM
Sounds like the challenges to Perry will be the same ones Bush got.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

Sounds like a breath of fresh air in the transparency department.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 09:16 AM
Tim Pawlenty

healthpellets
08-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Good lawd. Watching Bachmann sink her own ship on Meet the Press is oddly satisfying.

SNR
08-14-2011, 09:33 AM
Tim Pawlenty
LMAO LMAO LMAO

God it was hilarious watching the media trip over themselves trying to be "the ones who called it" regarding Pawlenty's presidential chances. There was an 8-page spread in Time Magazine all about how Pawlenty's got the presidential look, feel, and brains down pat FFS.

Good times... good times!

SNR
08-14-2011, 09:42 AM
Anyone from around Minnesota could have told the country that this guy was nothing more than a wet fart. In fact, his only weapon was the fact that he was nothing at all, and people could project whatever they wanted onto him for awhile.

That's the ONLY reason why he went this far at all in the campaign. And he finished about where he should.

I'm still laughing. This is hilarious. Man, and people say Ron Paul has no business running for public office.

evenfall
08-14-2011, 10:09 AM
Anyone from around Minnesota could have told the country that this guy was nothing more than a wet fart. In fact, his only weapon was the fact that he was nothing at all, and people could project whatever they wanted onto him for awhile.

That's the ONLY reason why he went this far at all in the campaign. And he finished about where he should.

Well, that worked for Obama.

Maybe Pawlenty's problem was actually having some experience related to the job of President.

He would never have had the three things that elected Obama though. George W. Bush, the ability to read a speech someone else wrote in an eloquent way, and he would never have gotten the "I'm voting for the black guy so I can be part of history" bandwagon effect.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-14-2011, 10:21 AM
If Perry wants to look into prosecuting Americans who participated in the efforts to clash with Israel's blockade, it moves him up a notch on my scale. Thanks for the tip.

Why do you hate America?

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:31 AM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

God it was hilarious watching the media trip over themselves trying to be "the ones who called it" regarding Pawlenty's presidential chances. There was an 8-page spread in Time Magazine all about how Pawlenty's got the presidential look, feel, and brains down pat FFS.

Good times... good times!
The Unhappy Media
Writes Steve Vance:

I was watching C-SPAN when the results were announced. The Iowa GOP leader announced, "Michele Bachmann". Then, he walked off the stage. C-SPAN spent some time focusing their cameras on the empty stage and the crowd. Then, it finally found a ticker that was showing the also-rans. But it started with Santorum, and on down from there! "We already know who the losers are", I said to myself. "how did Ron Paul do?" It was about five minutes before they displayed that result! "Wow, a close second place", I said, still talking to myself.

I then turned on the radio to our local news talk station, and they did talk about the Straw Poll. They talked for about five minutes, about how Bachmann won, and how Pawlenty must be really disappointed, and how Rick Perry was in there as a write-in. During the entire five-minute conversation, they did not even mention Ron Paul's name! He effectively tied for first place, and they don't even mention him. How annoying!

I expect that most of the votes for "Rick Perry" were actually Stephen Colbert's crowd, voting for "Rick Parry". Ha, ha.

Link (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/08/the-media-stunned/)

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:33 AM
Well, that worked for Obama.

Maybe Pawlenty's problem was actually having some experience related to the job of President.

He was just a yawner, imo.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:38 AM
As Ron Paul notes, Texas has never had a personal nor corporate income tax, and is a right-to-work state. Those are the basic reasons for its success, not the antics of Plutocracy Perry. Besides, the governor in Texas is mostly a figurehead, thanks to the Texas constitution. The lieutenant governor is the real power.

Lew (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/08/perry-a-legend-in-his-own-mind/)
Yeah, yeah Perry was also Lt Gov for a bit too.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:40 AM
Why do you hate America?

The thing is Perry made some exaggerated charges, half-truths and falsehoods to make his case while he abused his state office writing a letter in official capacity on an official state of Texas letterhead. A governor trying to make FP while prosecuting peaceful protest that broke NO laws.

banyon
08-14-2011, 10:41 AM
Less than 200 for Paul (away from first place). Not much from Pawlenty.

If you are a Paul supporter, I would think this would be good. Bachmann seems the most similar to Paul, policy-wise.

The only way Bachmann is like Paul is that she is rabidly anti-tax and anti-government because that's what her advisers told her to focus on.

Her moral positions are much more pronounced, and she seems fine with big government if that means making moral choices for you. Paul is much more libertarian in this regard.

Also, comparing their relative knowledge about history, economics, and the world, it seems like Bachmann just took an 8th grade history course while Paul has PhD level knowledge.

I don't agree with Paul on much (other than his anti-war stance), but I don't worry about his capacity to mentally handle the job.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 10:45 AM
I've written Perry off for the general election, though he could have an impact by winning the nomination, thus ensuring Obama's re-election. Especially since his glaring weakness is something his republican rivals may not hammer but that Obama absolutely will. His weakness is entitlements.

Perry had no intention at all of ever running for president until this year. So, while other republicans with an eye on the prize carefully watched what they said, Perry blithely let fly some opinions as Texas governor that will make him unelectable nationally. Specifically, he has gone on the record as saying that social security and medicare should be abolished on a national level, and the states should run, or not run if they don't want to, their own pension and elderly health care plans. Forget his nutty secession talk, the AARP will eat him alive on just that issue alone. This is not widely known yet, Rick Perry would get trounced by Obama.

FD
08-14-2011, 10:47 AM
I've written Perry off for the general election, though he could have an impact by winning the nomination, thus ensuring Obama's re-election. Especially since his glaring weakness is something his republican rivals may not hammer but that Obama absolutely will. His weakness is entitlements.

Perry had no intention at all of ever running for president until this year. So, while other republicans with an eye on the prize carefully watched what they said, Perry blithely let fly some opinions as Texas governor that will make him unelectable nationally. Specifically, he has gone on the record as saying that social security and medicare should be abolished on a national level, and the states should run, or not run if they don't want to, their own pension and elderly health care plans. Forget his nutty secession talk, the AARP will eat him alive on just that issue alone. This is not widely known yet, Rick Perry would get trounced by Obama.

Perry has a mountain of skeletons like that and he hasn't even begun to be scrutinized. I'm on record that Perry will bomb hard and fast this fall and winter.

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 10:51 AM
Tim Pawlenty

<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?video_pcode=k4Nmw6Cri746xA2OsoSlngyrIudg&height=318&deepLinkEmbedCode=NqZmNnMjp5nhGgz9HAn6ar7m8dnC5Yh-&embedCode=NqZmNnMjp5nhGgz9HAn6ar7m8dnC5Yh-&width=425"></script>

Chocolate Hog
08-14-2011, 10:51 AM
"I'm ending my campaign for president," Pawlenty told ABC's "This Week," noting that he wished the scenario had been different but voters were looking for something else."

Voters most be looking for someone who doesn't say "Obama" every other word.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:53 AM
"I'm ending my campaign for president," Pawlenty told ABC's "This Week," noting that he wished the scenario had been different but voters were looking for something else."

Voters most be looking for someone who doesn't say "Obama" every other word.

ROFL Good point! NO NEW IDEAS!

banyon
08-14-2011, 10:55 AM
I've written Perry off for the general election, though he could have an impact by winning the nomination, thus ensuring Obama's re-election. Especially since his glaring weakness is something his republican rivals may not hammer but that Obama absolutely will. His weakness is entitlements.

Perry had no intention at all of ever running for president until this year. So, while other republicans with an eye on the prize carefully watched what they said, Perry blithely let fly some opinions as Texas governor that will make him unelectable nationally. Specifically, he has gone on the record as saying that social security and medicare should be abolished on a national level, and the states should run, or not run if they don't want to, their own pension and elderly health care plans. Forget his nutty secession talk, the AARP will eat him alive on just that issue alone. This is not widely known yet, Rick Perry would get trounced by Obama.

Bush II had some of these skeletons too, but he managed to emerge, and he didn't even have the benefit of an un-energized left base and a terrible economy to run against.

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 10:55 AM
Is there something about Perry that makes you fear fascism or did you just think the caption matched the picture in a more generic way?

Both. The definition of fascism is govt and big business entertwined. Perry fits the bill pretty well.

More than anything though it's just the psychotic times we live in politically. The rich keep getting richer while convincing you guys to blame the poor and illegals for everything. if we sink into another depression (largely on the back of some ridiculous austerity plan like CCB) I could see FoxNews et al convincing all the mouth frothers that some kind of fascistic revolution is the only hope. Of course it wouldn't be called facism, but it would look the same.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 11:00 AM
Both. The definition of fascism is govt and big business entertwined. Perry fits the bill pretty well.

Partly correct but there's more. It does fit Perry when you look at his Merck connection with the 'Gardasil deal and his FP. Not all of what he believe falls into it though. Just some areas. It could be considered neo mercantilism too. BTW the same is true for Obama to an extent. Afterall, we have a mixed economic system these days.

I could see FoxNews et al convincing all the mouth frothers that some kind of fascistic revolution is the only hope. Of course it wouldn't be called facism, but it would look the same.

It's called "conservativism" but really a new brand for modern times—NeoConservativism.

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 11:19 AM
You're obsessed with neocons :p It's all just FoxNews mouth frothers to me.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 11:22 AM
You're obsessed with neocons :p It's all just FoxNews mouth frothers to me.

That's because that's who we're dealing with these days—on the left and the right. It's just the truth.
They need to be correctly labeled so they can be identified. Fox News is a perfect example of that persuasion.

Oh and BTW one of the leading self-described NCs calls Obama a "Born Again NeoCon" too.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yIKxLr_AWj8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 11:39 AM
How can Obama be a born again neocon and a devout Marxist at the same time? :spock:

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 11:49 AM
How can Obama be a born again neocon and a devout Marxist at the same time? :spock:

You do realize that there's a difference between domestic policy and foreign policy?

Not saying Obama is or isn't anything. But the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

And I would submit the possibility that, outside of Paul who is an ideologue on FP, any and every candidate to take office would quickly become a BAN to some extent, right around the time they get their mitts on the threat assessment.

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:05 PM
How can Obama be a born again neocon and a devout Marxist at the same time? :spock:

The political spectrum looks like this:

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:06 PM
You do realize that there's a difference between domestic policy and foreign policy?

Not saying Obama is or isn't anything. But the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

And I would submit the possibility that, outside of Paul who is an ideologue on FP, any and every candidate to take office would quickly become a BAN to some extent, right around the time they get their mitts on the threat assessment.

Since the goal of Marxism is a stateless society and the goal of neoconservative is the aggressive maintenance and acquisition of power, then they they should be incompatible.

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 12:13 PM
Since the goal of Marxism is a stateless society and the goal of neoconservative is the aggressive maintenance and acquisition of power, then they they should be incompatible.

Words mean things

I guess I could have just as easily rejoindered, "since the goal of Marxism is peanut butter, and the goal of neoconservatism is chocolate, then they should taste great together."

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:14 PM
Words mean things

I guess I could have just as easily rejoindered, "since the goal of Marxism is peanut butter, and the goal of neoconservatism is chocolate, then they should taste great together."

Yes, but the critical difference is that my premises were true, whereas yours are not.

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight." (Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Duhring], pp.301-03, third German edition.

"'Present-day society' is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries, being more or less free from medieval admixture, more or less modified by the particular historical development of each country, more or less developed. On the other hand, the 'present-day state' changes with a country's frontier. It is different in the Prusso-German Empire from what it is in Switzerland, and different in England from what it is in the United States. 'The present-day state' is, therefore, a fiction.

"Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite of their motley diversity of form, all have this in common, that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. The have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense it is possible to speak of the 'present-day state', in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1
____

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs. Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.[1][2] Most neoconservatives support the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

patteeu
08-14-2011, 12:49 PM
Both. The definition of fascism is govt and big business entertwined. Perry fits the bill pretty well.

More than anything though it's just the psychotic times we live in politically. The rich keep getting richer while convincing you guys to blame the poor and illegals for everything. if we sink into another depression (largely on the back of some ridiculous austerity plan like CCB) I could see FoxNews et al convincing all the mouth frothers that some kind of fascistic revolution is the only hope. Of course it wouldn't be called facism, but it would look the same.

Why would we need a fascistic revolution? Using your definition, don't we already have fascism under Obama? And for that matter, haven't we had it for a long time? What's different about Perry?

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:56 PM
Well I'm not saying we're close yet. But throw in a severe intractable depression and things could get dicey.

One worst-case scenario is that the teabaggers seize full power and shut down all social services, then wage war on the poor when crime inevitably goes up. Also blaming the illegals the whole time. While people like you still carry their water for them as they continue to transfer wealth to the rich - until we hit a point that we get to some kind of near civil war amongst the have-nots.

If the plutocracy can convince everyone to give up their freedoms and start walling off the poor - facism. If not, socialism.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 01:03 PM
And I would submit the possibility that, outside of Paul who is an ideologue on FP, any and every candidate to take office would quickly become a BAN to some extent, right around the time they get their mitts on the threat assessment.

I think this depends on who is giving the threat assessment and what it's based on. NC's base it on ideology—war for progressive purposes—whether it's for spreading democracy, making the world safe for it which is code for American hegemony, mercantile interests ( called American interests), humanitarian which is usually a cover for the previous three. These reasons are just as ideological as Paul's pov whose view is based far more of a defense of America. So those threat assessments are based on what those interests consider a threat—which more often is not what is a true threat to America—and often contain half-truths, exaggerations and flat out false hoods so they can get their way. This is what defines a true NeoConservative including loyalty to Israel first to the point where our military does the heavy lifting for their fears and threats, even when it creates more threats for us. There are others who create threats too.

There is no doubt in my mind if Paul assessed a real threat based on truthful and accurate data he would not hesitate to use our armed forces to deal with it—as this is the first duty of govt—to protect the lives of it's people. I fail to see how Paul's view is ideological when it's more based on what is a REAL threat.


From Butler Shaffer says it all:

Another statist candidate, Harold Hill, has come to Iowa (River City, to be precise) to ply his trade with the same fear-mongering tactic used by his fellow politicians. Just imagine the lyrics in this modified form: "We got "problems" with a capital "P," and that rhymes with "T," and that stands for "Terrorism."

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LI_Oe-jtgdI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
08-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Well I'm not saying we're close yet. But throw in a severe intractable depression and things could get dicey.

One worst-case scenario is that the teabaggers seize full power and shut down all social services, then wage war on the poor when crime inevitably goes up. Also blaming the illegals the whole time. While people like you still carry their water for them as they continue to transfer wealth to the rich - until we hit a point that we get to some kind of near civil war amongst the have-nots.

If the plutocracy can convince everyone to give up their freedoms and start walling off the poor - facism. If not, socialism.

It sounds to me like you're saying that the poor are just a hair trigger away from being criminals.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Well I'm not saying we're close yet. But throw in a severe intractable depression and things could get dicey.
We ARE in a DEPRESSION —just no one wants to call it that. Our govt is BANKRUPT!


If the plutocracy can convince everyone to give up their freedoms and start walling off the poor - facism. If not, socialism.

Well this applies to Obama and his co-horts too. Open your partisan eyes it's on BOTH sides!

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 01:12 PM
Words mean things

I guess I could have just as easily rejoindered, "since the goal of Marxism is peanut butter, and the goal of neoconservatism is chocolate, then they should taste great together."

The goal of Marxism ultimately is a stateless society but they use a socialist dictatorship or BIG govt gradually to bring it about. One is done via violent revolution; the other through Fabian tactics—what we have happening in America with a complete dumbing down of the public through public education and mass media— particularly in economics. The final stage, which never materializes because politicians and states do not like to give up power, is socialism without the state. This utopia NEVER happens though.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 01:14 PM
How can Obama be a born again neocon and a devout Marxist at the same time? :spock:

The original and leading NeoCons influencing our govt currently were once communists or social democrats. They moved into the R party because they were appalled by the anti-war movement of Vietnam. They have not really given up that ideology but have modified it. Things like "compassionate" conservativism and Laugher economics. So much of their arguments get couched in conservative sounding rhetoric but it never really winds up there in acts. So you see things like mercantilist economic policies getting called free-markets for one. Actions speak louder than words if you haven't noticed. You'll see some claim they're being practical etc. etc. etc.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 02:12 PM
Regarding Libya:

We must "commit America's strength to removing Qaddafi."

Regarding Syria:

"I called for Assad's departure on March 29," and "I call for it again."

And supports military option against Iran to be kept on the table


Good Riddance Endless Warmonger!

patteeu
08-14-2011, 02:17 PM
It's a shame Pawlenty is gone. He was at the top of my list so far, although I remain uncommitted until I see and hear more from all of the candidates.

banyon
08-14-2011, 02:25 PM
The goal of Marxism ultimately is a stateless society but they use a socialist dictatorship or BIG govt gradually to bring it about. One is done via violent revolution; the other through Fabian tactics—what we have happening in America with a complete dumbing down of the public through public education and mass media— particularly in economics. The final stage, which never materializes because politicians and states do not like to give up power, is socialism without the state. This utopia NEVER happens though.

Strangely, I mostly agree with this post wrt the two ways to achieve Marxism's goal, with the exception of the loopy "public education in America is Marxism" tangent.

HonestChieffan
08-14-2011, 02:51 PM
Well I'm not saying we're close yet. But throw in a severe intractable depression and things could get dicey.

One worst-case scenario is that the teabaggers seize full power and shut down all social services, then wage war on the poor when crime inevitably goes up. Also blaming the illegals the whole time. While people like you still carry their water for them as they continue to transfer wealth to the rich - until we hit a point that we get to some kind of near civil war amongst the have-nots.

If the plutocracy can convince everyone to give up their freedoms and start walling off the poor - facism. If not, socialism.


Severe Intractable depression? What???

I like the "teabaggers"....nicely played but come on cannot we be a bit more fair minded? Teabaggers as if this is some massive group of radical madmen?

"seize full power"...damn. An overthrow of the republic?

"shut down all social services"...imagine where such thoughts come from. Are you serious? What on earth are you thinking here?

"wage war on the poor"....you do understand there is no class differentiation among the "teabaggers" I hope. Many of those folks are just folks, people like you and me who thin we have spent too much and have allowed government to bloat to a level it needs to cut back. I'd even bet most of we "tebaggers' would be delighted to see the federal budget cut back to 2008 levels, you remember 2008. Back when the poor were tossed to the ditch and the rich danced the reel every weekend and laughed about the poor.


The madness in your post is sweet.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 03:22 PM
I don't get Republican rejection of Ron Paul. He is everything they say they support:
"pro-life, fiscal conservative, no new taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts, no Trans-Texas Corridor, no amnesty for illegals, no funding for NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the UN, cut welfare, pro-gun, repeal Roe v. Wade, no raise the debt ceiling, etc., etc., etc

Although it is true that the typical Republican doesn't fully embrace liberty like Ron Paul (no drug war, etc.), the main reason why the typical Republican rejects Ron Paul is because they love war and empire more than liberty. So sad." ~ Laurence Vance, author of nineteen books holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics."


I couldn't agree more!

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 03:41 PM
I don't get Republican rejection of Ron Paul. He is everything they say they support:
"pro-life, fiscal conservative, no new taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts, no Trans-Texas Corridor, no amnesty for illegals, no funding for NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the UN, cut welfare, pro-gun, repeal Roe v. Wade, no raise the debt ceiling, etc., etc., etc

Although it is true that the typical Republican doesn't fully embrace liberty like Ron Paul (no drug war, etc.), the main reason why the typical Republican rejects Ron Paul is because they love war and empire more than liberty. So sad." ~ Laurence Vance, author of nineteen books holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

1. I don't 'reject' Paul. I like a lot of what he says and I like his resolve. I don't see him as electable with the general populace. And that's because his resolve is a 2-edged sword. It veers into absolutism far too often. Not all answers reside at the very end of a logical conclusion.

2. To the extent there is ill-will, a lot is borne of quotes like you just cited. "they just love war" is just as angry-making as "they just want grandma to eat dog food"

Taco John
08-14-2011, 04:39 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5vRuy0m7IjA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Taco John
08-14-2011, 04:42 PM
How can Obama be a born again neocon and a devout Marxist at the same time? :spock:

Irving Kristol, the founding father of the Neocon Philosophy was originally a Marxist. They're not incompatible whatsoever.

patteeu
08-14-2011, 05:10 PM
I don't get Republican rejection of Ron Paul. He is everything they say they support:
"pro-life, fiscal conservative, no new taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts, no Trans-Texas Corridor, no amnesty for illegals, no funding for NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the UN, cut welfare, pro-gun, repeal Roe v. Wade, no raise the debt ceiling, etc., etc., etc

Although it is true that the typical Republican doesn't fully embrace liberty like Ron Paul (no drug war, etc.), the main reason why the typical Republican rejects Ron Paul is because they love war and empire more than liberty. So sad." ~ Laurence Vance, author of nineteen books holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics."


I couldn't agree more!

He's a RINO on foreign policy, that's why.

Deberg_1990
08-14-2011, 05:46 PM
I don't get Republican rejection of Ron Paul. He is everything they say they support:
"pro-life, fiscal conservative, no new taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts, no Trans-Texas Corridor, no amnesty for illegals, no funding for NPR, Planned Parenthood, and the UN, cut welfare, pro-gun, repeal Roe v. Wade, no raise the debt ceiling, etc., etc., etc

Although it is true that the typical Republican doesn't fully embrace liberty like Ron Paul (no drug war, etc.), the main reason why the typical Republican rejects Ron Paul is because they love war and empire more than liberty. So sad." ~ Laurence Vance, author of nineteen books holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics."


I couldn't agree more!

1. Alot of conversatives and moderates think hes a loon.

2. Hes not as traditionally handsome as Perry.

evenfall
08-14-2011, 05:56 PM
I don't get Republican rejection of Ron Paul.

the typical Republican doesn't fully embrace liberty like Ron Paul,

The main reason why the typical Republican rejects Ron Paul is because they love war


Maybe its the moronic rhetoric his drones are always spouting

Dave Lane
08-14-2011, 08:50 PM
I've written Perry off for the general election, though he could have an impact by winning the nomination, thus ensuring Obama's re-election. Especially since his glaring weakness is something his republican rivals may not hammer but that Obama absolutely will. His weakness is entitlements.

Perry had no intention at all of ever running for president until this year. So, while other republicans with an eye on the prize carefully watched what they said, Perry blithely let fly some opinions as Texas governor that will make him unelectable nationally. Specifically, he has gone on the record as saying that social security and medicare should be abolished on a national level, and the states should run, or not run if they don't want to, their own pension and elderly health care plans. Forget his nutty secession talk, the AARP will eat him alive on just that issue alone. This is not widely known yet, Rick Perry would get trounced by Obama.

Dead man walking...

0% chance to win, much like Ron Paul

Saul Good
08-14-2011, 09:06 PM
Maybe its the moronic rhetoric his drones are always spouting

Pretty much this. His supporters are the most insufferable people this side of the Deaniacs.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-14-2011, 09:32 PM
Pretty much this. His supporters are the most insufferable people this side of the Deaniacs.

The usual double speak at work, so The party now stands for Socialism got it. ;)

Taco John
08-14-2011, 09:36 PM
I don't see how anyone beats Perry for the Republican nomination. That guy is going to be like honey to bears for Republicans. Mitt's religion and his "North Eastern" dorkiness (for lack of a better way to put it) is going to struggle to get traction with Southern and religious conservatives.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-14-2011, 09:52 PM
http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=Michele+Bachmann,+Ron+Paul&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Michele+Bachmann%2C+Ron+Paul&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:03 PM
1. Alot of conversatives and moderates think hes a loon.
Well I KNOW that. Even that is an oddity considering his views are what they claim they want.

2. Hes not as traditionally handsome as Perry.

I wonder what Perry will look like in his 70's? Ever seen pics of Paul when he was younger? He was very good looking. Perry is tall though. I can't imagine the country going for another conservative from Texas again so soon.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:04 PM
I don't see how anyone beats Perry for the Republican nomination. That guy is going to be like honey to bears for Republicans. Mitt's religion and his "North Eastern" dorkiness (for lack of a better way to put it) is going to struggle to get traction with Southern and religious conservatives.

Hey!

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 10:06 PM
Pretty much this. His supporters are the most insufferable people this side of the Deaniacs.

I vote based on the candidates views—not who supports them.

I'd also rather hear his moronic droning of prosperity and peace instead of war, war and more war! That's what I find insufferable about the other candidates.

Jenson71
08-14-2011, 10:33 PM
Good lawd. Watching Bachmann sink her own ship on Meet the Press is oddly satisfying.

I have to disagree. I think she did well. She's no Palin.

banyon
08-14-2011, 10:54 PM
I have to disagree. I think she did well. She's no Palin.

Oh, but she is (though no lately)

START NEW MCCARTHY HEARINGS
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E_pN2IPAw6E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


WHOOPS BAD REVOLUTIONARY WAR HISTORY
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0pZpfVOqI6A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
08-14-2011, 11:45 PM
Maybe its the moronic rhetoric his drones are always spouting

Get used to it because that rhetoric is re-shaping the debates.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 11:52 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5vRuy0m7IjA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If any Ron Paul fans want to cling to a shred of hope, its not like the mainstream media they are complaining about has the power to decree Paul to be a non-factor. The political geeks like us who actually read political stories are already well aware of him and will vote for him if so inclined.

Most other run of the mill republicans are not paying a lot of attention yet. Ron Paul will have plenty of money to buy ads and he's got plenty of hard-core believers to reach people by word of mouth.

If the media turns out to have been wrong to dismiss him, and if Ron Paul has a newly-discovered talent this election cycle to reach the average primary voter that he didn't have in 2008 (maybe because of the economy and war exhaustion his message will sink in this time, who knows) then his poll numbers will rise. The media cant stop him from winning the nomination if he's destined to win it, he's just got a problem of being mostly libertarian during a time when the party has swung far right, though passionate he's not smooth, and he's very very old.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 12:06 AM
If any Ron Paul fans want to cling to a shred of hope, its not like the mainstream media they are complaining about has the power to decree Paul to be a non-factor. The political geeks like us who actually read political stories are already well aware of him and will vote for him if so inclined.

Most other run of the mill republicans are not paying a lot of attention yet. Ron Paul will have plenty of money to buy ads and he's got plenty of hard-core believers to reach people by word of mouth.

If the media turns out to have been wrong to dismiss him, and if Ron Paul has a newly-discovered talent this election cycle to reach the average primary voter that he didn't have in 2008 (maybe because of the economy and war exhaustion his message will sink in this time, who knows) then his poll numbers will rise. The media cant stop him from winning the nomination if he's destined to win it, he's just got a problem of being mostly libertarian during a time when the party has swung far right, though passionate he's not smooth, and he's very very old.

Ron Paul's problem is that the party has swung too far right? :spock:

alnorth
08-15-2011, 12:17 AM
Ron Paul's problem is that the party has swung too far right? :spock:

in the current convention of left-right thinking, yeah.

Really though if the so-called conservatives truely believed in personal liberty and limited government in all cases, if it were conservative (as it should be) to oppose the patriot act, believe in state's rights in almost all cases including drug policy, online gambling, and gay rights, and if it were conservative (as it should be) to want the country to be more isolationist and refrain from starting undeclared wars that Dems were once criticized for in decades past, then Ron Paul is to the right of his party, and his problem is that the GOP has lurched too far to true left.

orange
08-15-2011, 12:27 AM
http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=Michele+Bachmann,+Ron+Paul,+Rick+Perry&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Michele+Bachmann%2C+Ron+Paul%2C+Rick+Perry&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

FYP

patteeu
08-15-2011, 12:30 AM
in the current convention of left-right thinking, yeah.

Really though if the so-called conservatives truely believed in personal liberty and limited government in all cases, if it were conservative (as it should be) to oppose the patriot act, believe in state's rights in almost all cases including drug policy, online gambling, and gay rights, and if it were conservative (as it should be) to want the country to be more isolationist and refrain from starting undeclared wars that Dems were once criticized for in decades past, then Ron Paul is to the right of his party, and his problem is that the GOP has lurched too far to true left.

To the extent that the Republican Party has moved to the right, they've moved to the right in the areas that make them more similar to Ron Paul, not less similar.

Republicans, for the most part, have always (during our lifetimes at least) opposed drugs, gambling, and gay marriage, state's rights notwithstanding. They've also been national security hawks or at the very least peace through strength advocates. These things aren't new.

What's new in the Republican Party is the stronger sentiment for smaller government. In the past, lip service was enough. Now, people go out to protests/rallies in the name of small government. Ron Paul deserves a decent share of the credit for this, IMO.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 12:55 AM
I have to disagree. I think she did well. She's no Palin.

Really high bar you're setting there.

Taco John
08-15-2011, 03:35 AM
If any Ron Paul fans want to cling to a shred of hope, its not like the mainstream media they are complaining about has the power to decree Paul to be a non-factor. The political geeks like us who actually read political stories are already well aware of him and will vote for him if so inclined.

Most other run of the mill republicans are not paying a lot of attention yet. Ron Paul will have plenty of money to buy ads and he's got plenty of hard-core believers to reach people by word of mouth.

If the media turns out to have been wrong to dismiss him, and if Ron Paul has a newly-discovered talent this election cycle to reach the average primary voter that he didn't have in 2008 (maybe because of the economy and war exhaustion his message will sink in this time, who knows) then his poll numbers will rise. The media cant stop him from winning the nomination if he's destined to win it, he's just got a problem of being mostly libertarian during a time when the party has swung far right, though passionate he's not smooth, and he's very very old.

Oh, I know. I'm not under any illusion that we're ever going to get any fairness out of the media and that they're going to do their jobs and report the news (as opposed to shaping opinion, which is what modern media is about). At this point, I just find it amusing and hysterical as a student of politics, media and communications.

I don't have any expectations that the media is going to play fair. They'll do everything they can to marginalize Paul, and that's fine. The place where the Paul campaign will get fair treatment is going to be on doorsteps of neighbors during canvassing sweeps. I encourage anybody complaining about the media to take things into their own hands and make a difference. It's that kind of effort that got us where we are today, not relying on fair treatment from the media.

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 07:43 AM
Really high bar you're setting there.

True, but that's who she is often (maybe unfairly) compared to because of the gender.

I thought the interview helped her. David Gregory was fishing for that "God talks to me at night" response and she answered it well. She looked polished and in control. Palin never did.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 08:23 AM
in the current convention of left-right thinking, yeah.

Really though if the so-called conservatives truely believed in personal liberty and limited government in all cases, if it were conservative (as it should be) to oppose the patriot act, believe in state's rights in almost all cases including drug policy, online gambling, and gay rights, and if it were conservative (as it should be) to want the country to be more isolationist and refrain from starting undeclared wars that Dems were once criticized for in decades past, then Ron Paul is to the right of his party, and his problem is that the GOP has lurched too far to true left.

THIS.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 08:27 AM
It sounds to me like you're saying that the poor are just a hair trigger away from being criminals.

Is that so uncommon an idea?

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 08:59 AM
Most other run of the mill republicans are not paying a lot of attention yet.

I wonder if it's true this time around due to the condition of the country. There is intensity right now. I think Paul can benefit from that.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 09:06 AM
FOX reports that the three candidates in light of the straw poll are Bachman, Romney and Perry. Paul was not mentioned.

This is the same network that promotes Iran has a nuke. And they call us the loons.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-15-2011, 09:34 AM
FOX reports that the three candidates in light of the straw poll are Bachman, Romney and Perry. Paul was not mentioned.

This is the same network that promotes Iran has a nuke. And they call us the loons.

well at least they're consistent,-ly wrong.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:40 AM
Is that so uncommon an idea?

I don't think the poor people I know are close to becoming criminals. But then, I live in rural Missouri. Maybe we're just a better cut of people out here. :p

Jaric
08-15-2011, 09:47 AM
I don't think the poor people I know are close to becoming criminals. But then, I live in rural Missouri. Maybe we're just a better cut of people out here. :p

I realizing I'm generalizing here, but in my experiance there is a major difference in rural poor and urban poor. (and no, that isn't a euphimism for blacks)

I've assumed it was a side effect of urban poor tending to be packed together like sardines while rural poor generally aren't in that same condition. I don't have any proof of that, just an amatuer theory

FishingRod
08-15-2011, 12:41 PM
I don't think the poor people I know are close to becoming criminals. But then, I live in rural Missouri. Maybe we're just a better cut of people out here. :p

Does cooking meath count :)

alnorth
08-15-2011, 04:32 PM
Perry has a mountain of skeletons like that and he hasn't even begun to be scrutinized. I'm on record that Perry will bomb hard and fast this fall and winter.

Wow, you weren't kidding. I ran across another skeleton, and this is a big one.

I vaguely remembered the case of Todd Willingham several years ago (convicted of arson with the intent of killing his 3 kids. He maintained his innocence all the way to his execution) and how people were complaining that he was innocent, then he got executed. Never really paid it much attention because, similar to crying wolf, the anti death-penalty folks say that a lot. However, this is the first case I've run into, in the modern post-DNA era, where there is incredibly strong evidence that an executed man was factually innocent.

What does that have to do with Perry? Unfortunately for Willingham, his lawyer sucked, and by the time he got one of the nation's leading arson experts to look into it, it was only a few weeks before his execution date. The arson investigation techniques used to convict him had long since been thoroughly discredited, every piece of damning "Evidence" of arson could be better explained as an accidental fire, exculpatory evidence had been ignored, etc. An eerily similar death penalty arson case which relied on the same kind of flawed outdated arson investigation method was tossed on appeal with the wrongly jailed man compensated.

However, Willingham had already exhausted his appeals and was out of time. The Texas parole board denied his last appeal. (some of them later admitted that they didn't really look at the arson expert's report claiming Willingham was innocent) So, it was up to governor Rick Perry to give a 30-day delay and order a re-investigation. Rather than do that, Perry basically ignored the new evidence and let a man, who was very likely innocent, die.

Years later, as the executed man's family and advocates had more time to get other experts to investigate, several arson experts around the country confirmed that the evidence used to convict and execute was a steaming pile of outdated junk science. Maybe at the time in the early 90's it was not, but it certainly was discredited when Perry and the parole board were asked to take another look at it. If the trial had happened today, there is no way in hell Todd Willingham would have been convicted. He likely would not have been tried.

A few years ago some board in Texas decided to open an investigation into whether or not Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed. This was bad for Perry because he was running for re-election at the time. So, Perry replaced the chairman and 2 other members of that board, and the board then promptly cancelled the investigation. (reopening it only after Perry was safely re-elected) The AG of Texas recently (perhaps covering for Perry) ordered that board not to investigate the Willingham case, cutting off the possibility that he would formally be exonerated during the 2012 presidential election.

If nominated, Obama could credibly accuse his opponent of negligently allowing a likely innocent man to die.

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:30 PM
Wow, you weren't kidding. I ran across another skeleton, and this is a big one.

I vaguely remembered the case of Todd Willingham several years ago (convicted of arson with the intent of killing his 3 kids. He maintained his innocence all the way to his execution) and how people were complaining that he was innocent, then he got executed. Never really paid it much attention because, similar to crying wolf, the anti death-penalty folks say that a lot. However, this is the first case I've run into, in the modern post-DNA era, where there is incredibly strong evidence that an executed man was factually innocent.

What does that have to do with Perry? Unfortunately for Willingham, his lawyer sucked, and by the time he got one of the nation's leading arson experts to look into it, it was only a few weeks before his execution date. The arson investigation techniques used to convict him had long since been thoroughly discredited, every piece of damning "Evidence" of arson could be better explained as an accidental fire, exculpatory evidence had been ignored, etc. An eerily similar death penalty arson case which relied on the same kind of flawed outdated arson investigation method was tossed on appeal with the wrongly jailed man compensated.

However, Willingham had already exhausted his appeals and was out of time. The Texas parole board denied his last appeal. (some of them later admitted that they didn't really look at the arson expert's report claiming Willingham was innocent) So, it was up to governor Rick Perry to give a 30-day delay and order a re-investigation. Rather than do that, Perry basically ignored the new evidence and let a man, who was very likely innocent, die.

Years later, as the executed man's family and advocates had more time to get other experts to investigate, several arson experts around the country confirmed that the evidence used to convict and execute was a steaming pile of outdated junk science. Maybe at the time in the early 90's it was not, but it certainly was discredited when Perry and the parole board were asked to take another look at it. If the trial had happened today, there is no way in hell Todd Willingham would have been convicted. He likely would not have been tried.

A few years ago some board in Texas decided to open an investigation into whether or not Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed. This was bad for Perry because he was running for re-election at the time. So, Perry replaced the chairman and 2 other members of that board, and the board then promptly cancelled the investigation. (reopening it only after Perry was safely re-elected) The AG of Texas recently (perhaps covering for Perry) ordered that board not to investigate the Willingham case, cutting off the possibility that he would formally be exonerated during the 2012 presidential election.

If nominated, Obama could credibly accuse his opponent of negligently allowing a likely innocent man to die.

Who cares?

Bush executed retarded people (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/southwest/08/10/hci.bush.executions/) and people with even spottier evidence against them. (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051400wh-bush-cases.html) He also bizarrely commuted the sentence to potentially one of the worst serial killers in our nation's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas) (and the only one he ever gave clemency or a stay of execution to (http://www.newser.com/story/3968/commutation-decision-marks-serious-shift.html)), but was only asked about it once and brushed it aside with a deflective comment.

"The first question I ask in each death penalty case is whether there is any doubt about whether the individual is guilty of the crime," Bush said.

"While Henry Lee Lucas is guilty of committing a number of horrible crimes, serious concerns have been raised about his guilt in this case," the governor said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/26/national/main12682.shtml

People who care about individual justice are outraged by this stuff, but it doesn't seem to make the media's question agenda somehow. I assume Perry can sweep this under the rug as well.

|Zach|
08-15-2011, 08:33 PM
PERRY ON BERNANKE: ‘I DUNNO WHAT Y’ALL WOULD DO TO HIM IN IOWA BUT WE WOULD TREAT HIM PRETTY UGLY DOWN IN TEXAS’

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:34 PM
That's a real Perry quote?

HonestChieffan
08-15-2011, 08:35 PM
Bush killed retarded people? And Perry killed somebody. That just does it. Dammit.

|Zach|
08-15-2011, 08:40 PM
That's a real Perry quote?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/296552/perry-on-bernanke-pretty-ugly-down-in-texas/

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:43 PM
Bush killed retarded people? And Perry killed somebody. That just does it. Dammit.

Well, I didn't post that in hopes of you taking your head out of the sand.

Other people may not be impervious to facts though.

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:45 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/15/296552/perry-on-bernanke-pretty-ugly-down-in-texas/

Perry said, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in history is almost treasonous in my opinion.” Treason is a capital offense


Good Lord. I don't think even Ron Paul wants to have Bernanke executed.

alnorth
08-15-2011, 08:55 PM
Who cares?

Bush executed retarded people (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/southwest/08/10/hci.bush.executions/) and people with even spottier evidence against them. (http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051400wh-bush-cases.html) He also bizarrely commuted the sentence to potentially one of the worst serial killers in our nation's history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas) (and the only one he ever gave clemency or a stay of execution to (http://www.newser.com/story/3968/commutation-decision-marks-serious-shift.html)), but was only asked about it once and brushed it aside with a deflective comment.

"The first question I ask in each death penalty case is whether there is any doubt about whether the individual is guilty of the crime," Bush said.

"While Henry Lee Lucas is guilty of committing a number of horrible crimes, serious concerns have been raised about his guilt in this case," the governor said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/26/national/main12682.shtml

People who care about individual justice are outraged by this stuff, but it doesn't seem to make the media's question agenda somehow. I assume Perry can sweep this under the rug as well.

This case is a lot different. I'm not going to get excited about a retarded person who killed, and the others were basically convicted based on witnesses of varying reliability, some of whom recanted.

While troubling, for better or worse juries and people tend to put a lot more weight on witnesses than they should, and someone somewhere actually was guilty of murder in your cases.

In this case, you have a man who was clearly distraught, trying to do everything he could to save his kids, and punched a cop who was restraining him from what would have been a suicide run back into his house. He eventually had to be restrained in handcuffs for his own safety. The only way in the world anyone ever could have thought that this was somehow all a show by a murderer was what was thought, at the time, to be powerful scientific evidence of arson. You had a jailhouse snitch later claim he heard him confess (later overheard telling another inmate he was hoping to get a break for testifying), but none of that would have mattered without the junk science.

In the other cases you had maybe a plausible story, cops thinking "ok, someone killed this person, you said he did it? fine, will go with that." Here, what we should have had was no crime at all, just a tragic accident. It was transformed into a crime due to junk science. After the junk science was discredited, you basically have a likely innocent man. Not a hazy uncertain situation where "is it really beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know, the witness isn't credible", no this is more than that, you've got full-blown "he didn't do it, he's innocent and the governor killed him anyway"

This could be a much bigger deal. The death penalty folks have been looking for that "they executed a factually innocent man" holy grail for years, this is probably it.

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:58 PM
This case is a lot different. I'm not going to get excited about a retarded person who killed, and the others were basically convicted based on witnesses of varying reliability, some of whom recanted.

While troubling, for better or worse juries and people tend to put a lot more weight on witnesses than they should.

In this case, you have a man who was clearly distraught, trying to do everything he could to save his kids, and punched a cop who was restraining him from what would have been a suicide run back into his house. He eventually had to be restrained in handcuffs for his own safety. The only way in the world anyone ever could have thought that this was somehow all a show by a murderer was what was thought, at the time, to be powerful scientific evidence of arson. You had a jailhouse snitch later claim he heard him confess (later overheard telling another inmate he was hoping to get a break for testifying), but none of that would have mattered without the junk science.

In the other cases you had maybe a plausible story, cops thinking "ok, someone killed this person, you said he did it? fine, will go with that." Here, what we should have had was no crime at all, just a tragic accident. It was transformed into a crime due to junk science. After the junk science was discredited, you basically have a likely innocent man. Not a hazy uncertain situation where "is it really beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know, the witness isn't credible", no this is more than that, you've got full-blown "he didn't do it, he's innocent and the governor killed him anyway"

This could be a much bigger deal. The death penalty folks have been looking for that "they executed a factually innocent man" holy grail for years, this is probably it.

I disagree about the political impact, but can see your criticism of the merits of the case.

What do you make of the bizarre Lucas commutation?

alnorth
08-15-2011, 09:09 PM
I disagree about the political impact, but can see your criticism of the merits of the case.

What do you make of the bizarre Lucas commutation?

I didn't really look at that, because I don't think there's as much of a fallout for commuting a sentence. (unless its an Arnold Schwarzenegger situation where you commuted the sentence of a buddy's son, then flat-out admit to a reporter that you helped out a friend! I'm never watching a movie by that idiot again!) The governor can always hide behind the need to be certain of guilt, and this one was questionable, and the public will shrug.

Now, if this was merely about Perry making a mistake and not asking for the 30-day delay and re-investigation that is one thing. He can survive that. What makes this really damning is the fact that he obviously crushed an investigation years later that may have exonerated him, for purely political reasons while Perry was running for re-election, and now the AG is basically forbidding the state from investigating further during what would be an election year. That stinks like hell.

Taco John
08-15-2011, 10:06 PM
Sounds like a real power hungry douche bag. Just the kind Republicans love to elect.

Taco John
08-15-2011, 10:11 PM
This case is a lot different. I'm not going to get excited about a retarded person who killed, and the others were basically convicted based on witnesses of varying reliability, some of whom recanted.

While troubling, for better or worse juries and people tend to put a lot more weight on witnesses than they should, and someone somewhere actually was guilty of murder in your cases.

In this case, you have a man who was clearly distraught, trying to do everything he could to save his kids, and punched a cop who was restraining him from what would have been a suicide run back into his house. He eventually had to be restrained in handcuffs for his own safety. The only way in the world anyone ever could have thought that this was somehow all a show by a murderer was what was thought, at the time, to be powerful scientific evidence of arson. You had a jailhouse snitch later claim he heard him confess (later overheard telling another inmate he was hoping to get a break for testifying), but none of that would have mattered without the junk science.

In the other cases you had maybe a plausible story, cops thinking "ok, someone killed this person, you said he did it? fine, will go with that." Here, what we should have had was no crime at all, just a tragic accident. It was transformed into a crime due to junk science. After the junk science was discredited, you basically have a likely innocent man. Not a hazy uncertain situation where "is it really beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know, the witness isn't credible", no this is more than that, you've got full-blown "he didn't do it, he's innocent and the governor killed him anyway"

This could be a much bigger deal. The death penalty folks have been looking for that "they executed a factually innocent man" holy grail for years, this is probably it.

I'm not particularly against the death penalty, but this story makes me sick to my stomach.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2011, 10:16 PM
Sounds like a real power hungry douche bag. Just the kind Republicans love to elect.

I am finding put even more about Perry over at one of the few places who dig up the best stuff.

Texas has had a long history of anti-debt, anti-banker sentiment. But the Rickster, I am told, has changed all that, issuing almost $15 billion in road bonds, and getting a line of credit for another $20 billion. There is vast dough and power in catering to the bankers, of course, and Perry is their boy, just as he is Big Pharma's boy, Big Agra's boy, and, especially, the Pentagon-arms makers complex's boy, not to speak of a foreign government's. What a guy! Don't ask me where the people rank in his scale of values. BTW, I'd love an article on his borrowing, who handled the underwriting, etc.~Lew