Zogby Poll: Perry Plummets to 18%; Trails Cain For Lead

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2011...18-trails-cain-lead-among-gop-primary-voters/

 

[barfo]

Hah! I look forward to learning a bit more about the pizza guy.

barfo

 

[julius]

Sometimes I think that politicians have no idea they're recorded when they speak, or that there is a thing called "google search".

 

[speeds]

Has anyone ever had Godfather's pizza?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

who hasn't?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Has anyone ever had Godfather's pizza?

Instead of putting the toppings on the cheese they put the cheese over the toppings.

It looks like sun baked bird shit but it's not bad.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

taco pizzas, right? i always get them and rountable mixed up.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

taco pizzas, right? i always get them and rountable mixed up.

Ummmm... I don't think I've had a taco pizza from either place.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Small timer

X

 

[mook]

Is it me, or does it feel like everybody in the Republican party is trying to think of a guy to choose instead of Romney, before they inevitably choose Romney?

 

[barfo]

Is it me, or does it feel like everybody in the Republican party is trying to think of a guy to choose instead of Romney, before they inevitably choose Romney?

Seems like the half-life of republican candidates is about 1 month. Maybe it would be a better system to have Romney go head-to-head with one candidate per month. Then if Romney is polling higher at the end of the month, he gets a new challenger. But if the challenger has higher poll numbers at the end of the month, he becomes the new champion.

barfo

 

[ABM]

Seems like the half-life of republican candidates is about 1 month. Maybe it would be a better system to have Romney go head-to-head with one candidate per month. Then if Romney is polling higher at the end of the month, he gets a new challenger. But if the challenger has higher poll numbers at the end of the month, he becomes the new champion.

barfo

Obama's re-election bid is so much at risk, I'm surprised more GOP candidates haven't licked their respective chops and jumped into the mix.

 

[julius]

Obama's re-election bid is so much at risk, I'm surprised more GOP candidates haven't licked their respective chops and jumped into the mix.

There is far too much money in not running for President. Palin for example would have to take a sizeable pay cut AND people would actually point out she's full of shit. Not worth it to them. Money talks and bullshit doesn't run for President.

 

[barfo]

Obama's re-election bid is so much at risk, I'm surprised more GOP candidates haven't licked their respective chops and jumped into the mix.

It's a mystery, all right. Here's a couple of possibilities:

1) Nobody else in the GOP wants to be president.
2) Everybody else decided that 2016 was a better time to run.

I'll let you decide which is more likely, and why.

barfo

 

[ABM]

It's a mystery, all right. Here's a couple of possibilities:

1) Nobody else in the GOP wants to be president.
2) Everybody else decided that 2016 was a better time to run.

I'll let you decide which is more likely, and why.

barfo

Your choices don't excite me. Next candidate, please.

 

[barfo]

There is far too much money in not running for President. Palin for example would have to take a sizeable pay cut AND people would actually point out she's full of shit. Not worth it to them. Money talks and bullshit doesn't run for President.

How do you explain Mitt Romney, then?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Obama's re-election bid is so much at risk, I'm surprised more GOP candidates haven't licked their respective chops and jumped into the mix.

Is it me, or does it feel like everybody in the Republican party is trying to think of a guy to choose instead of Romney, before they inevitably choose Romney?

Seems like the half-life of republican candidates is about 1 month. Maybe it would be a better system to have Romney go head-to-head with one candidate per month. Then if Romney is polling higher at the end of the month, he gets a new challenger. But if the challenger has higher poll numbers at the end of the month, he becomes the new champion.

There is far too much money in not running for President. Palin for example would have to take a sizeable pay cut AND people would actually point out she's full of shit. Not worth it to them. Money talks and bullshit doesn't run for President.

Some of them are playing "Who wants to be a millionaire" and some are playing "Are you smarter than a 5th grader."

 

[julius]

How do you explain Mitt Romney, then?

barfo

He's not a real marketable figures like Palin o Gulianni or some others. For him, being president or running for president would be a huge step up for him.

 

[speeds]

I can see Romney getting the same forced, tepid support Dole & McCain had. I don't think it bodes well for the GOP despite some legit reservations by so-called moderates regarding another four years of Bama, especially if he keeps his promise to waste the first few years of his presidency hitting ctrl-z on everything the previous administration implemented.

 

[julius]

I can see Romney getting the same forced, tepid support Dole & McCain had. I don't think it bodes well for the GOP despite some legit reservations by so-called moderates regarding another four years of Bama, especially if he keeps his promise to waste the first few years of his presidency hitting ctrl-z on everything the previous administration implemented.

I think a bigger issue is (and you kind of addressed it here) is that if the R's don't nominate someone who is somewhat moderate (Romney is, Huntsman is), they might all the sudden start really be producing a very fringe party.

I think most people, deep down inside, want people to be treated equally. And one party is producing candidates who are against that (despite what some people here want to imply about "lie-bruls", they actually aren't against peoples differences).

 

[Denny Crane]

At this point, a doorknob will beat Obama. Romney standing next to Obama on stage near election time will seem presidential enough.

The bad news is republicans will have between 51 and 55 senate seats and will maintain control of the House. One party in control of all 3 hasn't been so good the past 11 years.

I root for gridlock.

 

[mook]

At this point, a doorknob will beat Obama. Romney standing next to Obama on stage near election time will seem presidential enough.

Wasn't he the guy who drove to Canada with a dog on his roof?

I wasn't sure, so I just looked it up on Snopes:

Origins: In June 2007 the Boston Globe reported that in 1983, current Republican presidential hopeful (and former Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney had placed his Irish setter in a dog carrier on the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour trip to his parents' cottage on the Canadian shores of
Lake Huron. He'd built a windshield for the carrier to make the ride more comfortable for the dog. He'd also made it clear to his five sons that bathroom breaks would be taken only during predetermined stops to gas up the car.

The dog spoiled this plan by letting loose with a bout of diarrhea during its rooftop sojourn, necessitating an unplanned gas station visit for the purpose of hosing down the pooch, its carrier, and the back of the car.

In that Boston Globe article, the incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel.

Romney dismisses such critics by saying "They're not happy that my dog loves fresh air."

It's kind of hard for me to imagine he'll look "presidential enough" when this story gets more national media attention during the general election. It's his "Rev. Wright" thing, except that it was actually Romney doing it and not a pastor.

Or the photo of Dukakis in the tank.

Or Howard Dean's "HYYYYeah!" whoop.

Some things politicians do are so silly that you just can't quite take them as serious enough for the oval office anymore. The mental image I have of a dog shitting all over the top of your car as you take the kids on a 12 hour drive is that kind of thing.

*shrug* I could be wrong. In a way I hope so--it's a weird way to lose a general election.

 

[mook]

I root for gridlock.

I don't. There's simply too much that needs to get done.

But I do root for divided government. Oddly enough, I think the recent Democratic dominance showed the pitfalls of controlling both houses and the executive. The party that is out has absolutely no stake in anything succeeding, so they do everything they can to torpedo everything.

I think there's a much better chance of positive change happening if both parties have a stake in success and failure. I particularly think Republicans are going to inevitably get tired of being uncompromising. It's fine and all to demand "my way or the highway!" for a year or two as a sop to the Tea Partiers, but eventually you want to actually accomplish something. There will never be a time when the Tea Party so dominates DC that they get their way. So the politicians are going to need the political cover that comes with compromise. Which is as it should be.

 

[HailBlazers]

Watched all the debates, and Perry vs. Romney arguing over who said what in their books and blaming Obama for the downfall of this country =

I don't want anyone like that running this country, your either part of the problem or part of the solution. I like Cain because he speaks to solutions, not semantics over blaming who and what. That said, No way he gets elected or even if he did, the corporations would do their usual blockading, lobbying, and slander so that nothing ever really changes.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't. There's simply too much that needs to get done.

But I do root for divided government. Oddly enough, I think the recent Democratic dominance showed the pitfalls of controlling both houses and the executive. The party that is out has absolutely no stake in anything succeeding, so they do everything they can to torpedo everything.

I think there's a much better chance of positive change happening if both parties have a stake in success and failure. I particularly think Republicans are going to inevitably get tired of being uncompromising. It's fine and all to demand "my way or the highway!" for a year or two as a sop to the Tea Partiers, but eventually you want to actually accomplish something. There will never be a time when the Tea Party so dominates DC that they get their way. So the politicians are going to need the political cover that comes with compromise. Which is as it should be.

There's nothing to be done. Almost anything govt. has done has done much more harm than good. It's been like a drinking binge - it might feel good for a short while but the hangover is going to be a painful and lasting one. Like, any jobs Obama's stimulus has "saved" are now gone, but we are stuck with the credit card balance for it.

The deficits during the Reagan years were huge for the time, but this recent debt ceiling increase will cover us for a year and it's as big as all those Reagan deficits combined. It doesn't matter those deficits added to the debt 30 years ago, the sum is still on the credit card statement.

The scale of the problem is staggering. It will take GDP decades to grow enough to bring in the kind of revenues to make the deficits reasonable, let alone make it possible to pay any of it off. Our ability to take any new fiscal or monetary measures is restricted to the point the Fed is trying gimmicks. The Fed used to be able to raise interest rates during good times so they could lower them to stimulate borrowing during down turns; now they can't raise rates much or the credit card payments will be a HUGE portion of what govt, has to spend.

When you're in a hole, you don't get out by digging deeper. Gridlock prevents us from digging the hole deeper.

That's for starters.

 

[huevonkiller]

Cain might be a big military spender, he sounds confused on that subject.

I also question Cain's 9-9-9 plan. It sounds like over-taxation and it is redundant.

There's nothing to be done. Almost anything govt. has done has done much more harm than good. It's been like a drinking binge - it might feel good for a short while but the hangover is going to be a painful and lasting one. Like, any jobs Obama's stimulus has "saved" are now gone, but we are stuck with the credit card balance for it.

The deficits during the Reagan years were huge for the time, but this recent debt ceiling increase will cover us for a year and it's as big as all those Reagan deficits combined. It doesn't matter those deficits added to the debt 30 years ago, the sum is still on the credit card statement.

The scale of the problem is staggering. It will take GDP decades to grow enough to bring in the kind of revenues to make the deficits reasonable, let alone make it possible to pay any of it off. Our ability to take any new fiscal or monetary measures is restricted to the point the Fed is trying gimmicks. The Fed used to be able to raise interest rates during good times so they could lower them to stimulate borrowing during down turns; now they can't raise rates much or the credit card payments will be a HUGE portion of what govt, has to spend.

When you're in a hole, you don't get out by digging deeper. Gridlock prevents us from digging the hole deeper.

That's for starters.

I do not understand your argument. A "gridlock", means interest rates on past debt will eventually overwhelm us.

 

[Denny Crane]

Gridlock means they won't undertake new ginormous spendy projects.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Gridlock means they won't undertake new ginormous spendy projects.

No, it means both parties gets a double helping of pork.

 

[barfo]

Gridlock means they won't undertake new ginormous spendy projects.

Gridlock is kind of a peculiar ambition for someone who thinks the government is doing everything absolutely wrong. Gridlock means it continues as is.

I understand your point that gridlock means it won't get worse, from your point of view. But that's aiming pretty low, if you really believe there is a crisis, don't you think?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Gridlock is kind of a peculiar ambition for someone who thinks the government is doing everything absolutely wrong. Gridlock means it continues as is.

I understand your point that gridlock means it won't get worse, from your point of view. But that's aiming pretty low, if you really believe there is a crisis, don't you think?

barfo

It's government. There is a lot of ready, fire, aim to it. I don't have faith it is going to be better at what it's supposed to do, just less focused and more expensive.

The guys at the top are more interested in philosophy and academic exercises than blunt but effective solutions.

Ever read PJ O'Roarke? He's not your typical conservative. If not, you don't know what you're missing.

He writes in "Parliament of Whores" that there are hundreds of agencies tasked with preventing poverty. The cost of the programs and their inaccessibility makes them outrageously expensive and not very effective. He shows how for a fraction of that spending, you can do away with all but one of those agencies, write checks to the people who are below the poverty level so they're well above it, and save considerable tax payer money.

So gridlock keeps the number of those agencies at 150 instead of growing them to 200...

And in the meantime, guys like Ron Paul are making the right policy ideas heard and then we'll see a real change for the better.

I root for continuing resolutions to fail, because govt. shutdown will save us money, and we'll realize together the fraction of the missing govt. that we can't do without.